Just want to inform you about the new search engine "Objects Search"
http://www.ObjectsSearch.com

[Rob O. Zilla:]
>
> The WhereWithal appears to be missing today.  I wonder if this is
> temporary or permanent?
>
> << http://www.wherewithal.com >>

FWIW, the Wherewithal Web site seems to be working now.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

Although the main directory for Wherewithal and Xoron
has been restored, it seems that the CD Domain has
been discontinued.  All of the owners of Custom
Directories are now homeless.

I had to scramble to get Floridawithall and my smaller
projects up and running again.

I guess I should not call myself a "category owner"
anymore since I dont seem to own anything of value at
Wherewithal...

gamiziuk



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

[George Miziuk:]
>
> Although the main directory for Wherewithal and Xoron
> has been restored, it seems that the CD Domain has
> been discontinued.  All of the owners of Custom
> Directories are now homeless.

I'm surprised that it took this long.  When Custom Directories first proved to
be a popular product, it was not long before Steve Thomas, co-founder and
chairman of Wherewithal, started wondering how much people would pay for said
product.  The answer, of course, was *NOTHING*, since:

1.  The Wherewithal system had too many serious bugs that needed to be resolved;

2.  The Wherewithal system had too many essential features that were missing;
and

3.  Too many competitors were providing products for free and/or for a modest
fee that, on smaller scales, were vastly superior to Wherewithal.

To make matters worse, the advantages of the Wherewithal system -- i.e.,
scalability, ownership rights, freedom of association -- were diminished by the
human element of mismanagment, which led to increasing friction between me and
the powers that be, which led to my marginalization and (ultimately) led to my
departure.  Of course, by that time, salaries were an ancient memory, stock
options had become worthless, and I had already returned full-time to my work as
an Internet consultant.

Two and a half years later, nothing seems to have changed, and I am reluctant to
go into any greater detail because I really don't want to give Wherewithal any
free air time.  Suffice it to say that would-be Wherewithal Category Owners
would be well-advised to set up their own small-scale Web directories using one
of the many free software programs that can be found at <
http://xodp.sourceforge.net/similarprojects.html >.  Hosting services typically
run about $15.00 per year, which (along with domain name fees) can be easily
offset by tasteful use of affiliate programs.  The only thing that's missing for
the free content revolution to be complete is a standardized format for data
downloads and uploads.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

>David wrote:it was not long before Steve Thomas, co-founder and
chairman of Wherewithal, started wondering how much people would pay
for said product.<

He was just trying to sell an old idea. That is have a directory
built by free labor and then make money from those efforts.

As soon as that cat was out of the bag to the it was game over.

Also, as you mentioned, I totally agree with building your own
directory and would like to see them put together as a larger
offering to the public as long as it is not a commercial venture.

Why build for AOL / ODP when you can own it?

Hi.

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to members of this group to visit
SiteLibrary Link Collectors Community and Bookmarks Directory. It's a new
site for link collectors, directory editors, and anyone interested in
keeping track of all we find on the internet.

I was waiting to ask y'all because I know there are a bunch of knowledgeable
people here, so I wanted to get things all smooth and looking nice before
showing it off. BUT since it looks like I might be working on it almost 24/7
forever before I'm ever satisfied, I'll let the word out now.

Please come on over to visit.

http://www.sitelibrary.net/

Jos

I took a peek today, and it seems and Xoron and
Wherewithal are only shadows of their former selves.
When I logged in, all the categories to edit have
disappeared.

I believe we may hold the funeral today.

--- <gamiziuk@...> wrote:
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:10:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: <gamiziuk@...>
> Subject: Fwd: Wherewithal CDs...
> To: xodp@egroups.com
>
> Although the main directory for Wherewithal and
> Xoron
> has been restored, it seems that the CD Domain has
> been discontinued.  All of the owners of Custom
> Directories are now homeless.
>
> I had to scramble to get Floridawithall and my
> smaller
> projects up and running again.
>
> I guess I should not call myself a "category owner"
> anymore since I dont seem to own anything of value
> at
> Wherewithal...
>
> gamiziuk
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

[George Miziuk:]
>
> I took a peek today, and it seems and Xoron and
> Wherewithal are only shadows of their former selves.
> When I logged in, all the categories to edit have
> disappeared.
>
> I believe we may hold the funeral today.

Wherewithal has been more or less comatose and on life support for
years, but I think that a funeral is a little bit premature.
Occasional changes to the "executive team" appear on the Web site --
i.e., new blood occasional signs on without performing due diligence,
then resigns after a few months once it becomes apparent that they've
been sold a bill of goods.  Similarly, the composition of
Wherewithal's "Advisory Board" has gradually changed, the difference
being that investors who pony up the cash to keep Wherewithal on life
support maintain a vested interest in Wherewithal's dubious future.

I have been contacted by former Wherewithal Category Owners over the
last few years, and my advice to them has been to rent space from one
of the many reasonably-priced hosting services that are readily
available, then move their content to said hosting services.  (See,
e.g., < http://directnic.com/?6533 > -- up to 20MB of hosting and 2
gigabytes of data transfer for $15.00 per year.)  Beyond that, an
open/free content license (i.e., e.g., the GNU Free Documentation
License used by Wikipedia <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License > will
allow you to share (and/or *SELL*) your directory content while
insuring that credit is given where credit is due.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

XODP Moderator netesq wrote:

> Wherewithal has been more or less comatose and on life support for
> years, but I think that a funeral is a little bit premature.
> Occasional changes to the "executive team" appear on the Web site --
> i.e., new blood occasional signs on without performing due
diligence, then resigns after a few months once it becomes apparent
that they've been sold a bill of goods.
> XODP Moderator netesq

Bill of goods indeed lol.

Similarly from:

http://www.topix.net/topix/team

"Rich joined Netscape/AOL upon its *purchase* of NewHoo/The Open
Directory Project"

"Bryn was a co-founder of NewHoo/The Open Directory Project and also
joined Netscape/AOL upon its *acquisition*." (is that really how his
name is spelled lol)

Snippet on Chris Tolles:

"Before Spoke, Chris was Director of Marketing .... and the Open
Directory Project. "

Not to change the subject but the time seems right for a new
directory. A truly non profit organization comes to mind - one that
is not selling a bill of goods.

newgool.com is available! as is org and net

Rumor has it that XODP has no relevance to the Wikipedia article on
XODP.  I disagree.  But your comments and contributions are welcome on this here
public forum.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

I like the Wikipedia article, or set of articles if it's the same one I was
thinking of. I read one set a long time ago. Part of the reason that drew me
here to this group.

Thanks for the invite to make a comment.

Jos

----- Original Message -----
From: "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@...>
To: <xodp@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:33 AM
Subject: [xodp] Wikipedia Article on XODP


> Rumor has it that XODP has no relevance to the Wikipedia article on
> XODP.  I disagree.  But your comments and contributions are welcome on
this here public forum.
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq
>
>
>
>
>
> The XODP eGroup can be found on the World Wide Web at <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp >.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jos:]
>
> I like the Wikipedia article, or set of articles if it's the same
> one I was thinking of. I read one set a long time ago. Part of the
> reason that drew me here to this group.

The article to which I am referring can be found at <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project >.  It has been an
on-again/off-again attractive nuisance for ODP's spin doctors, who have been
totally ineffective in their attempts to remove unflattering facts about ODP
from the article.  Particularly worthy of note is the utter failure of the
bear-baiting techniques typically employed by ODP's spin doctors to induce a
breach of civility on the part of their critics.

Until now, I have drawn a clear and distinct boundary between my role as the
owner of the XODP Yahoo! eGroup and my role as a fringe member of the Wikipedia
community, but ODP Meta Editor kctipton recently started editing Wikipedia's
article on ODP and removed the link to the XODP Yahoo! eGroup.  In response, I
reinstated the link and pointed out that there are some 2,000 posts here that
are ODP-related, and that there is additional ODP-related content in the links
and files sections.  Moreover, I pointed out that during the last year of
relative quiet here, I have been contacted by no less than two high profile
attorneys as a potential expert witness in cases involving their clients who
have unresolved grievances against ODP -- this as a direct result of the
ODP-related content indexed here.

Given my druthers, I would rather let sleeping dogs lie, but then I realized
that there are quite a few interested parties who are totally unaware of the
fact that a Wikipedia article on ODP even exists and totally unaware of the fact
that ODP's spin doctors are hard at work trying to censor that article and
prevent a fair and full presentation of viewpoints critical of ODP.

My guess is that most people use XODP as a vehicle for moving on to life after
ODP and, after doing so, have no further interest in ODP.  It is precisely this
sort of apathy to which ODP's spin doctors appeal, but I think that in this
particular instance they have seriously underestimated the ongoing disdain that
ODP's policies and procedures create among those whom ODP's oligarchical
collective has ignored, marginalized, disenfranchised, and cashiered.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

When I was unceremoniously cashiered from Netscape's Open Directory Project <
http://dmoz.org/ > just over four years ago, I founded the XODP Yahoo! eGroup
and wrote a guest column for Traffick entitled Life After the Open Directory
Project < http://www.traffick.com/story/06-2000-xodp.asp >.  My primary
objective then as now was to provide a free speech forum where interested
parties could discuss the future of open content indexing, and that objective
incidentally involved a certain amount of ODP bashing by the various parties who
felt that they had been done wrong by ODP.  But discussing the future of open
content indexing has always been subordinate to my overarching interest in how
the Internet *SHOULD* be indexed.  To that end, I recently attended Search
Engine Strategies Summer 2004 Conference and Expo (SES), a trade show for search
engine professionals that was held in San Jose from Monday August 2nd through
Thursday August 5th, 2004.  (< http://www.searchenginestrategies.com/ >.)

The show was a lot of fun.  I particularly enjoyed the food and live music at
the Third Annual Google Dance on Tuesday night and the Yahoo! Reception at the
Tech Museum of Innovation on Wednesday night, the latter event noticeably
missing any form of music, a shortcoming that was more than compensated by the
interactive museum exhibits at the reception location.  But when it comes to
Internet indexing and search solutions, I can honestly say that there's nothing
new under the sun, and that mercenary concerns about marketing and promoting Web
sites of dubious quality tend to drown out concerns about how to make high
quality Web sites readily available to the masses.

Notwithstanding the pervasive cynical overtones of search engine optimization,
SES has clearly taken its place as the premiere venue for people who want to
learn more about Internet indexing and search solutions.  It is also *THE* place
to be for anyone who is part of the Internet marketing industry, providing a
plethora of networking opportunities as well as opportunities to put questions
to the actual decisionmakers at companies like Google, Yahoo! and Overture, and
get straight answers.  I had the opportunity to meet and greet quite a few of
these people, whom I once knew only by reputation.

Most memorable among the meets and greets were Richard Skrenta and Chris Tolles,
the founders of ODP.  They were at SES hawking their newest endeavor Topix.net
(< http://www.topix.net/ >), and enough water had passed underneath the bridge
for us to engage in some friendly banter and compare notes about the various
events that have transpired since my departure from ODP.  Both Skrenta and
Tolles knew that they knew me, but they didn't remember who I was, at least not
at first.  Then Skrenta typed my name into his search engine, and jokingly
announced to Tolles, et al., with a sense of alarm, "David Prenatt, . . . David
Prenatt, . . . Botany Bay!  Botany Bay!"  (For those of you who are not Star
Trek fans, the reference to Botany Bay will be too obscure for me to explain
within the context of this post; just ask a trekkie what it means.)

While I don't pretend to speak for Skrenta, one of the things that I think he
and I found common ground on was the fact that ODP's relevance declined after
the advent of "organic" search engine algorithms like Google (<
http://www.google.com/ >) and pay per click search engines like Overture (<
http://www.overture.com/ >).  Until very recently, I think that the one-two
punch of Google and Overture provided a more or less adequate and comprehensive
indexing and search solution for most people, a solution that many people
thought would last for decades to come.  I think this explains why Skrenta and
company's newest indexing endeavor focuses on exploiting search engine
technology rather than exploiting volunteer labor.  But over the last year, I've
seen compelling evidence that Google reached its zenith in efficiency during the
last year or so after indexing some 4 billion URLs.  To wit, Google has
allegedly fallen victim to its own Y2K+3 bug as well as falling victim to the
shameless self-promoters who know how to game the Google algorithm. (_See_ <
http://www.google-watch.org/broken.html > "Is Google Broken?"; _see also_ <
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141138 > "How to beat Google –
a proven case study.")  Meanwhile, Overture has stagnated into a rather limited
search facility that favors only the shrewdest of businesspeople.

To be clear, I think that the search engine industry is an attractive nuisance
for shameless self-promoters, a sentiment that was reinforced by attending SES. 
But given my druthers, I prefer a shameless self-promoter who knows that he or
she is a shameless self-promoter to someone who thinks that he or she is above
all that.  Somewhere in the middle are the people I generally choose to work
with:  Attorneys who are recognized experts in their areas of practice whom I
advise on how to showcase their expertise on the Internet without inadvertently
offending the sensibilities of their potential clients.  As far as I am
concerned, the first and most important step in that process is creating a high
quality Web site.

As many of my online hecklers know, I am an attorney by training, but I do not
practice law, a choice that is self-imposed by virtue of the important role that
I feel I can play as a rainmaker for other high profile attorneys.  The
correctness of this choice has been reinforced by many of my clients who have
candidly admitted that the practice of law is akin to trench warfare.  As such,
even the most ethical attorneys are part of the problems that they hope to solve
by virtue of the fact that they routinely validate an inherently flawed legal
system by achieving Pyrrhic victories for their clients.

I think the same thing can be said about ethical SEO professionals.  So, in the
final analysis, I am a mercenary with a sense of ethics, which is quite a
paradox to some people who would like to exploit me to satisfy their own greed. 
To wit, "Why not just work for the highest bidder?"  Well, as far as I am
concerned, once I have enough money to provide for my basic human needs and the
small handful of luxuries that make my life comfortable and enjoyable, money is
just a way of keeping score.  Much more important to me is the triumph of
ideals.

If there is one thing that is noticeably missing in the search engine industry,
it is ideals that are informed by deep reflection.  Google, the undisputed
leader in the search engine industry, pays lip service to the ideal that one can
"make money without doing evil."  But as Google gets closer and closer to the
reality of an IPO, it seems more and more self-evident that this purported ideal
is actually a sound byte(sic) meant for public consumption, and that the bottom
line for the powers that be at Google is a financial bottom line.

Don't get me wrong:  I don't think there's anything immoral about making a
profit.  But I do think that there's something inherently wrong with professing
high and mighty ideals while concomitantly exploiting the people who render
faithful service to your business enterprise in the hopes of working their way
up through the ranks.  With some very noteworthy exceptions, this is the essence
of Corporate America, where labor and management have always had an adversarial
relationship.  It is also the prevailing culture at most large law firms, where
associates are recruited with the promise of someday becoming partners,
exploited for a couple of years worth of billable hours, and then cashiered
without any sort of meaningful legal experience.

By virtue of my distaste for Corporate America and the large law firm mentality,
the vast majority of my consulting clients are sole practitioners and small law
firms.  In those rare instances where I've worked with large law firms and large
business enterprises, it has been with very clear boundaries regarding the
nature of my work, not unlike the boundaries that John Galt imposed upon himself
in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.  To wit, "My brains are not for sale." 
Perhaps if more people were to impose these sorts of boundaries on themselves
and think only for themselves, the Internet (and the world) would be a much
better place.

In theory, Google works on the principle that the most popular Web sites are the
most authoritative.  And if people were more interested in giving credit where
credit is due and less interested in boosting their own link popularity, this
principle would probably work quite well.  In reality, however, it is very easy
for unscrupulous SEO experts to game the Google algorithm and boost the
PageRank(TM) of mediocre sites, a growing problem of "garbage in; garbage out"
that has defied all of Google's attempts to police it, as noted above.  The
solution to this problem is one that requires people to think and act as
individuals.  (See generally < http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~maxim/OpenGRiD/ >
"TheOpen Grid.")  To wit, rather than join forces with a collective like ODP,
individuals should create and publish their own annotated link lists and license
those link lists to other individuals with a free/open content license.  Then,
and only then, would an algorithm like Google be able to harvest meaningful data
from a database of trusted URLs.  IMHO, this is the "Future of Search."

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

I'm not the one who removed the link.  Someone else did. Take a hard
look at the logs.

"...have been totally ineffective in their attempts to remove
unflattering facts about ODP from the article"

"ODP's spin doctors are hard at work trying to censor that article and
prevent a fair and full presentation of viewpoints critical of ODP"

Since wikipedia lets anybody with a keyboard undo others' additions
and changes, no wonder you've able to call everyone else ineffective
in changing things.  I'd rather call it this:  Netesq has been
effective at deleting/reverting anything he doesn't agree with or
casts ODP in any sort of positive light.

I put in three damn hours reading, writing and revising that article,
adding significant content that you, being 4 years out of touch with
ODP, couldn't possibly have firsthand knowledge of.  Still, you
deleted the content -- against Wikipedia policy no less.   You are NOT
on the side of those who want to present a fair and full presentation
of ODP, positive or otherwise.

[Kctipton:]
>
> I'm not the one who removed the link.  Someone else did. Take a hard
> look at the logs.

_Mea culpa_.  You didn't remove the link.  An anonymous Wikipedian removed the
link, then "Angela," who also happens to be a current ODP editor, removed the
link, and then you agreed with her fallback position that the link should be
annotated to reflect the lack of recent posts regarding ODP, a point that has
been wholly mooted by your current response here.

[Kctipton:]
>
> Since wikipedia lets anybody with a keyboard undo others' additions
> and changes, no wonder you've able to call everyone else ineffective
> in changing things.  I'd rather call it this:  Netesq has been
> effective at deleting/reverting anything he doesn't agree with or
> casts ODP in any sort of positive light.

Call it whatever you wish.  It doesn't change the fact that the current
Wikipedia article is the result of more than one mediated discussions in which I
unswervingly deferred to the decisions of third parties.

[Kctipton:]
>
> I put in three damn hours reading, writing and revising that
> article, adding significant content that you, being 4 years out of
> touch with ODP, couldn't possibly have firsthand knowledge of.

You'd be surprised just how much firsthand knowledge I have had of ODP during
the past 4 years.  During the last year alone, I have been contacted by more
than one attorney who has filed suit against ODP on behalf of his/their
client(s), and I am informed and believe that the information that I shared with
said attorneys helped at least one of them negotiate an out of court settlement
that was acceptable to all parties concerned.  Incidental to these contacts was
a review of "confidential" information -- including posts in ODP's "private"
editor forums -- that had been obtained through pretrial discovery.

[Kctipton:]
>
> . . . Still, you deleted the content -- against Wikipedia policy no
> less.

At no point in time during my editing of the Wikipedia article on ODP did I
"violate" any of Wikipedia's policies, a point that is no doubt lost on someone
who is accustomed to the peculiar way that ODP formulates and enforces its own
policies and procedures.  And even if I were technically "guilty" of violating
one of Wikipedia's policies, Wikipedians are free to "ignore all rules," a
Wikipedia policy that is endorsed by a number of Wikipedians, including
Wikipedia's primary benefactor Jimbo Wales.  (See <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules >.)

IMHO, most of the changes that you made to the Wikipedia article on ODP did not
improve it.  In any event, while I did revert your edits, I reinstated a
substantial amount of the content that you contributed, and the content that is
found in the current article is the product of your contributions and the
mediated discussions that preceded your contributions.

[Kctipton:]
>
> . . . You are NOT on the side of those who want to present a fair
> and full presentation of ODP, positive or otherwise.

This statement is qualified in such a way as to make it meaningless.  To wit, by
virtue of the fact that there are a substantial number of people who find flaw
with ODP, a fair and full presentation of ODP could not be "positive or
otherwise."  Rather, a fair and full presentation of ODP would comport with
Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which would require a balanced presentation of all
noteworthy viewpoints.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

Hahahahaha.

I noticed a few months ago that the ODP article at Wikipedia was
listed as "disputed".  Other disputed articles included ones on
Scientology and religious and political topics.  The Scientology
connection made sense because ODP looks more like a cult all the
time.  (I just looked at Wikipedia, and Scientology is no
longer "disputed"; maybe I had that wrong.)

Anyhow, I read some of the history of the ODP article.  Someone
mentioned that the legendary Arlarson article about removal of
editors is no longer available at ODP.  A shame, because that was
seriously one of the funniest things I have ever read on the
Internet.  I thought it was a joke at first.  But it was a great
article.

There have been two stunning threads at Webmasterworld in the past
two months.  One was called

"Editors Getting Offered or Expecting Compensation?"

and the other was "ODP On Verge of Collapse?"

both started by Webmasterworld owner Brett Tabke.  (I really think
if anyone else had started them, they would have been deleted.)

Now I very much doubt there is much bribery going on at ODP, but it
was hilarious to read the reactions and defenses the cult came up
with in response to a suggestion of misconduct.

It's hard to be mad at ODP these days.  They deserve pity, not
hatred or contempt.  If Time Warner has any corporate conscience
they would pay for some therapy time for the meta-editors, who
probably are depressed.




--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@d...>
wrote:
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > I'm not the one who removed the link.  Someone else did. Take a
hard
> > look at the logs.
>
> _Mea culpa_.  You didn't remove the link.  An anonymous Wikipedian
removed the link, then "Angela," who also happens to be a current
ODP editor, removed the link, and then you agreed with her fallback
position that the link should be annotated to reflect the lack of
recent posts regarding ODP, a point that has been wholly mooted by
your current response here.
>
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > Since wikipedia lets anybody with a keyboard undo others'
additions
> > and changes, no wonder you've able to call everyone else
ineffective
> > in changing things.  I'd rather call it this:  Netesq has been
> > effective at deleting/reverting anything he doesn't agree with or
> > casts ODP in any sort of positive light.
>
> Call it whatever you wish.  It doesn't change the fact that the
current Wikipedia article is the result of more than one mediated
discussions in which I unswervingly deferred to the decisions of
third parties.
>
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > I put in three damn hours reading, writing and revising that
> > article, adding significant content that you, being 4 years out
of
> > touch with ODP, couldn't possibly have firsthand knowledge of.
>
> You'd be surprised just how much firsthand knowledge I have had of
ODP during the past 4 years.  During the last year alone, I have
been contacted by more than one attorney who has filed suit against
ODP on behalf of his/their client(s), and I am informed and believe
that the information that I shared with said attorneys helped at
least one of them negotiate an out of court settlement that was
acceptable to all parties concerned.  Incidental to these contacts
was a review of "confidential" information -- including posts in
ODP's "private" editor forums -- that had been obtained through
pretrial discovery.
>
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > . . . Still, you deleted the content -- against Wikipedia policy
no
> > less.
>
> At no point in time during my editing of the Wikipedia article on
ODP did I "violate" any of Wikipedia's policies, a point that is no
doubt lost on someone who is accustomed to the peculiar way that ODP
formulates and enforces its own policies and procedures.  And even
if I were technically "guilty" of violating one of Wikipedia's
policies, Wikipedians are free to "ignore all rules," a Wikipedia
policy that is endorsed by a number of Wikipedians, including
Wikipedia's primary benefactor Jimbo Wales.  (See <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules >.)
>
> IMHO, most of the changes that you made to the Wikipedia article
on ODP did not improve it.  In any event, while I did revert your
edits, I reinstated a substantial amount of the content that you
contributed, and the content that is found in the current article is
the product of your contributions and the mediated discussions that
preceded your contributions.
>
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > . . . You are NOT on the side of those who want to present a fair
> > and full presentation of ODP, positive or otherwise.
>
> This statement is qualified in such a way as to make it
meaningless.  To wit, by virtue of the fact that there are a
substantial number of people who find flaw with ODP, a fair and full
presentation of ODP could not be "positive or otherwise."  Rather, a
fair and full presentation of ODP would comport with Wikipedia's
NPOV policy, which would require a balanced presentation of all
noteworthy viewpoints.
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq

[Polyppa:]
>
> I noticed a few months ago that the ODP article at Wikipedia was
> listed as "disputed".

The dispute notice was inserted by XODP Editor liftarn, who remains an ODP
cheerleader notwithstanding the unceremonious removal of his editing privileges
quite some time ago.  Liftarn gives a whole new meaning to the Stockholm
Syndrome.

[Polyppa:]
>
> . . . Other disputed articles included ones on Scientology and
> religious and political topics.  The Scientology connection made
> sense because ODP looks more like a cult all the time.  (I just
> looked at Wikipedia, and Scientology is no longer "disputed"; maybe
> I had that wrong.)

The insertion of a neutrality dispute is meant to be a temporary measure.  Very
few Wikipedia articles keep that label for very long.

[Polyppa:]
>
> . . . Someone mentioned that the legendary Arlarson article about
> removal of editors is no longer available at ODP.

The article is available once again at <
http://dmoz.org/newsletter/2000Sep/removal.html >; the last time I checked the
link I got a 303 error, but that could have been a problem with the Lindows
system that I was using at that time.

[Polyppa:]
>
> There have been two stunning threads at Webmasterworld in the past
> two months.  One was called
>
> "Editors Getting Offered or Expecting Compensation?"
>
> and the other was "ODP On Verge of Collapse?"
>
> both started by Webmasterworld owner Brett Tabke.  (I really think
> if anyone else had started them, they would have been deleted.)

Editors Getting Offered or Expecting Compensation? - <
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/2140.htm >.

ODP on Verge of Collapse - < http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/2184.htm >.

Very interesting reads.

[Polyppa:]
>
> Now I very much doubt there is much bribery going on at ODP, but it
> was hilarious to read the reactions and defenses the cult came up
> with in response to a suggestion of misconduct.

[Polyppa:]
>
> It's hard to be mad at ODP these days.

Although few would believe it, I have never been "mad" at ODP, but I do know
quite a few people who have been very, very angry at ODP, nd as I stated earlier
in this thread, I know of more than one person who has filed suit against ODP, a
trend which seems to be gathering more and more steam.

Other things being equal, one can safely ignore ODP.  OTOH, one can learn quite
a bit from ODP's feckless attempts to deal with its endemic problems of
scalability and quality control.  The solution is to be found in a decentralized
system of small scale Web directories or annotated link lists covering specific
topics.  These link list can then be spidered, analyzed, and ranked by powerful
search engine algorithms like Google.  Of course, this presumes that there is a
significant number of infomediaries who are willing to publish their own
independent link lists.

In the final analysis, a worthwhile search engine algorithm cannot work in a
vacuum.  It requires a database of trusted URLs, and those trusted URLs must be
reviewed and evaluated by human beings to be deemed trustworthy.  The problem
arises when the work of indexing and annotating Web sites becomes secondary to
the political machinations of a large scale project like ODP.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

After reading through the last 5 or so posts I must say that I am
impressed with the quality of this recent discussion, both here and
the two threads at webmasterworld.

No doubt a 360% turn of the tables has occurred and only a couple ODP
cheerleaders remain.

Since I have a very busy schedule, I do not have the time right now
to respond in great detail.

Kudos to KC Tipton for putting in "three damn hours reading, writing
and revising that article" refering to his editing of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project (No doubt many
wish they had three hours in a day to pursue there hobbies lol)

On ODP "Editors Getting Offered or Expecting Compensation?" by an
administrator of webmasterworld Brett Tabke. I applaud him for
stepping up to the plate with his opening statement "I could not
believe it when an ( ODP ) editor offered to list a site for us for
cash the other day. "

see:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/2140.htm

Honestly, this is one of the best threads I have ever read about the
ODP. To newcomers it may not seem that big of a deal, but considering
the stranglehold a handfull of ODP meta editors imposed on fair and
uncensored discussion of the ODP it is a big deal.

[sarcasm] No doubt the same passion and obsession on par with KC's to
censor and twist discussion of the ODP is now limited to several semi-
finalist. Which one will be the last standing and what mozzie award
will they get. [end sarcasm lol]

The second thread mentioned, "ODP On Verge of Collapse?"
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/2184.htm

While the title is old news the thread was both amusing and
informative. A few that are just plain funny but telling:

"It might be worth mentioning that AOL has whole roomfuls of servers,"

continued with

"and it's likely that they will continue to keep some staff member
who knows how to administer them".

Wow! Whole roomfuls etc., really? j/k

Lastly, "Personally I know of at least _two_ people who are getting
paid for working on the ODP at the moment. "

Wow!

An interesting development in re the Wikipedia article on ODP:  Another
Wikipedian created a link from the Wikipedia article on the Open Directory
Project < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project > to a new
Wikipedia article about "David F. Prenatt, Jr." (aka Your Humble XODP
Moderator), which I redirected to my Wikipedia user page <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netesq >.  Shortly thereafter, another
Wikipedian claimed the _David F. Prenatt, Jr._ article was a "vanity page," and
I responded with my position that as long as the link to the _David F. Prenatt,
Jr._ article existed it should link to my Wikipedia user page, as I am not a
public figure and have no desire to be.  After a return to the _status quo
ante_, some Wikipedian used my Wikipedia user page as a template for the _David
F. Prenatt, Jr._ article < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Prenatt%2C_Jr.
>, and I waited to see what would happen next.  I didn't have to wait long.

The Wikipedia article on David F. Prenatt, Jr. has been listed on Wikipedia:
Votes for deletion < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion
>.  As the subject of this article -- which I did *NOT* create -- I am quite
ambivalent about its existence.  Simply put, I do not want or need celebrity
status, but I do understand that there are people who consider my activities as
an XODP editor noteworthy, including the founders of ODP whom I met in person
recently at the Search Engine Strategies Seminar in San Jose.  Basically, my
position is that I'd rather not have the Wikipedia article featuring me, but
that position is based on privacy concerns and my desire to avoid enabling
online stalkers such as those who set up the now defunct Netesqsucks.com Web
site.

The flip side of this coin is that I am clearly the most notable critic of ODP,
and XODP is clearly a watering hole for critics of ODP.  As such, to dismiss me
and/or XODP as not being worthy of note is to say that criticism of ODP is not
worthy of note.  In reality, it is ODP itself that is not worthy of note, and it
is XODP's criticism of ODP that has brought this fact to the attention of
thousands of XODP editors and frustrated ODP submitters.

In a recent XODP post entitled "The Future of Search" <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2246 >, I pointed out reasons why
XODP remains a viable entity.  In essence, while XODP was inspired by ODP, it
should not be defined by ODP.  Rather, XODPers can and should offer their ideas
and commentary on what is beyond the next horizon and discuss progressive ideas
about how the Internet _should_ be indexed.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "njsahadi" <njsahadi@y...> wrote:

> The second thread mentioned, "ODP On Verge of Collapse?"
> http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/2184.htm
>
> While the title is old news the thread was both amusing and
> informative. A few that are just plain funny but telling:
>

That link doesn't work  - how do I get to that pst?

[njsahadi:]
> >
> > The second thread mentioned, "ODP On Verge of Collapse?"
> > http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/2184.htm
> >
> > While the title is old news the thread was both amusing and
> > informative. A few that are just plain funny but telling:

[avrad:]
>
> That link doesn't work  - how do I get to that pst?

The thread seems to be gone.  You might post a query at WebMasterWorld, . . .
and be sure to tell 'em that XODP sent ya!

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

It would seem that Mr Tabke had got his facts wrong and that he wanted to save
himself from further embarrassment by pulling the thread.

_____________________________________________________________
See how your lender rates at http://MortgageGauge.com
** People emailing you asking for a financial transaction?  Learn about this
fraud: http://www.secretservice.gov/alert419.shtml

[john boy:]
>
> It would seem that Mr Tabke had got his facts wrong and that he
> wanted to save himself from further embarrassment by pulling the
> thread.

Well, having read through the thread before it was pulled, there was nothing
there that would be particularly "embarrassing" to Mr. Tabke.  Claiming that ODP
is "on the verge of collapse" has become almost as fashionable as predicting the
downfall of Microsoft(r).  In reality, the oligarchical collective known as ODP
is currently muddling along as it has been for several years, making the same,
tired, old excuses for its inability to cope with ever increasing problems with
a lack of scalability and quality control.  If and when Time Warner actually
does decide to pull the plug on ODP, it will happen very suddenly, as it did
when Disney decided to pull the plug on the former Go directory.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

A while back, my attention was drawn to the Google Watch Web site (<
http://www.google-watch.org/ >) by postings on various online discussion forums.
As the name implies, Google Watch is a self-appointed Google (<
http://www.google.com/ >) watchdog.  What is not immediately apparent is that
Google Watch is owned and operated by Public Information Research, a non-profit
corporation in San Antonio, Texas, a fact that is largely overlooked in an
article that Farhad Manjoo wrote about Google Watch for Salon.com.  (<
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/29/google_watch/ "Meet Mr.
Anti-Google.">.  Rather, Manjoo's article focuses on the personality of Daniel
Brandt, the primary force behind Google Watch.

To be sure, Daniel Brandt is a webmaster who has a personal beef with Google,
and that beef has mushroomed into a series of articles that are highly critical
of Google.  The original beef has to do with problems that Brandt has
encountered with getting one of his Web sites indexed by Google.  The Web site
in question is NameBase (< http://www.namebase.org/ >), an online database of
citations to articles featuring public figures, which is in fact indexed by
Google, but because of the relatively low PageRank of the 100,000 plus URLs on
NameBase, Google doesn't pay much attention to the deeplinks on the site.

Enter Google Watch Watch (< http://www.google-watch-watch.org/ >), a two-page
Web site published by Chris Beasley, a self-appointed Google apologist, who says
that he created Google Watch Watch. . ."[b]ecause I love Google. Google is a
great company, a good company, a responsible company. They are in a position of
tremendous power and they do not abuse it. They never sacrifice their vision for
the sake of making a buck. They are benign innovators, if only other companies
(here's looking at Bill), were this good."

Unfortunately, Beasley's response to Brandt is an _ad hominem_ attack that
focuses on the motivations of Brandt in targeting Google for criticism.  When
Beasley gets through with his _ad hominem_ attack, he uses this as a lead in to
a gross oversimplification of Brandt's criticism of Google as being a criticism
of PageRank as a method of ranking the importance of Web pages.  Even if
Brandt's criticism of Google were nothing more than a criticism of PageRank,
that would be a well-founded criticism.  To which Beasley responds, "PageRank
isn't perfect, but it is the best thing we have."

To be certain, I have no hidden agenda when it comes to a discussion about the
merits and drawbacks of Google, and I think that Google Watch has done a very
good job in exposing many of Google's shortcomings, including the limitations of
PageRank.  And unlike Beasley, I do not "love Google," nor do I believe that
Google is any better or worse than any other company, and I am astonished that
there is anyone who believes that any company funded by venture capitalists is
interested in anything other than a financial bottom line.  Everything else,
including self-aggrandizing rhetoric, is simply a means to that end.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

This recent thread at Jimworld discusses some growing Google weaknesses,
mainly having to do with Google running out of "docIDs":

<<
http://www.jimworld.com/apps/webmaster.forums/action::thread/thread::1091693
159/forum::google/ >>

My websites seem to draw more traffic from Yahoo, rather than Google lately.


----- Original Message -----
From: "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@...>
To: <xodp@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:08 PM
Subject: [xodp] Google, Google Watch, and Google Watch Watch


> A while back, my attention was drawn to the Google Watch Web site (<
http://www.google-watch.org/ >) by postings on various online discussion
forums.  As the name implies, Google Watch is a self-appointed Google (<
http://www.google.com/ >) watchdog.  What is not immediately apparent is
that Google Watch is owned and operated by Public Information Research, a
non-profit corporation in San Antonio, Texas, a fact that is largely
overlooked in an article that Farhad Manjoo wrote about Google Watch for
Salon.com.  (<
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/29/google_watch/ "Meet Mr.
Anti-Google.">.  Rather, Manjoo's article focuses on the personality of
Daniel Brandt, the primary force behind Google Watch.
>
> To be sure, Daniel Brandt is a webmaster who has a personal beef with
Google, and that beef has mushroomed into a series of articles that are
highly critical of Google.  The original beef has to do with problems that
Brandt has encountered with getting one of his Web sites indexed by Google.
The Web site in question is NameBase (< http://www.namebase.org/ >), an
online database of citations to articles featuring public figures, which is
in fact indexed by Google, but because of the relatively low PageRank of the
100,000 plus URLs on NameBase, Google doesn't pay much attention to the
deeplinks on the site.
>
> Enter Google Watch Watch (< http://www.google-watch-watch.org/ >), a
two-page Web site published by Chris Beasley, a self-appointed Google
apologist, who says that he created Google Watch Watch. . ."[b]ecause I love
Google. Google is a great company, a good company, a responsible company.
They are in a position of tremendous power and they do not abuse it. They
never sacrifice their vision for the sake of making a buck. They are benign
innovators, if only other companies (here's looking at Bill), were this
good."
>
> Unfortunately, Beasley's response to Brandt is an _ad hominem_ attack that
focuses on the motivations of Brandt in targeting Google for criticism.
When Beasley gets through with his _ad hominem_ attack, he uses this as a
lead in to a gross oversimplification of Brandt's criticism of Google as
being a criticism of PageRank as a method of ranking the importance of Web
pages.  Even if Brandt's criticism of Google were nothing more than a
criticism of PageRank, that would be a well-founded criticism.  To which
Beasley responds, "PageRank isn't perfect, but it is the best thing we
have."
>
> To be certain, I have no hidden agenda when it comes to a discussion about
the merits and drawbacks of Google, and I think that Google Watch has done a
very good job in exposing many of Google's shortcomings, including the
limitations of PageRank.  And unlike Beasley, I do not "love Google," nor do
I believe that Google is any better or worse than any other company, and I
am astonished that there is anyone who believes that any company funded by
venture capitalists is interested in anything other than a financial bottom
line.  Everything else, including self-aggrandizing rhetoric, is simply a
means to that end.
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq
>
>

As most people who follow the news know, CBS aired a story about President
George W. Bush recently on _60 Minutes_.  (<
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml >.)  The
story was supposed to be about Bush's service record in the National Guard. 
However, once the story aired, the spin quickly began to gravitate around the
dubious authenticity of certain documents used by CBS to prove its allegations
against Bush.  Presidents come, and presidents go, and the impact that this
particular _60 Minutes_ story may end up having on the presidential election is
not the real story.  The real story is the medium by which the negative spin
over _60 Minutes_ was propagated over the Internet.  To wit, while most Internet
consultants and Web designers have been obsessing over keyword density and
Google PageRank, the ever-growing community of bloggers have quietly become a
force to be reckoned with.

The efficacy of blogs in creating and spreading media buzz is not a new
phenomenon.  Since their inception about five years ago, blogs have been
recognized for their ability to generate all sorts of noise, particularly on
search engines.  However, few people outside the blogging community realized
that the noise could become the signal.

The term "blog" first entered the unofficial Internet lexicon in May of 1999
when it was coined by Peter Merholz (< http://www.peterme.com/ >) as a
contraction of the term "weblog."  Shortly thereafter, in August of 1999, Pyra
Labs released the Blogger blogging tool (< http://www.blogger.com/start >), and
blogs quickly became a full-blown online megatrend.  However, for the
uninitiated, the question remains, "What, exactly, is a blog?"

Decades ago, a friend of mine graduated from college with a degree in electrical
engineering, and he was offered a job starting on the ground floor in a new
field called "computers."  He declined, explaining, "On/off switches . . . How
far can it go?"  He ended up working for a defense contractor and had a notable
career as a project manager.  Even so, had my friend recognized the enormous
potential of digital technology, I have no doubt that he would have gone much,
much further.

To be clear, blogs are more than just online journals.  First and foremost,
blogs are the medium for a new type of technology, what marketing people refer
to as a "disruptive technology," and blogs themselves are a "killer application"
that is the most significant killer application since the advent of the World
Wide Web.  Moreover, as noted above, the community of bloggers have become a
force to be reckoned with on the World Wide Web, a force that can blow
established media properties out of the water when they fail to verify their
sources, and game search engine algorithms without even trying.

Ignore the phenomenon of blogs at your own risk.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

I understand Dan Rather << http://www.rathergate.com/ >> may be in danger of
losing his job at See B.S. News over this story.

LOL

----- Original Message -----
From: "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@...>
To: <xodp@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 10:27 AM
Subject: [xodp] Blogs - Quietly Moving from Noise to Signal


> As most people who follow the news know, CBS aired a story about President
George W. Bush recently on _60 Minutes_.  (<
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml >.)  The
story was supposed to be about Bush's service record in the National Guard.
However, once the story aired, the spin quickly began to gravitate around
the dubious authenticity of certain documents used by CBS to prove its
allegations against Bush.  Presidents come, and presidents go, and the
impact that this particular _60 Minutes_ story may end up having on the
presidential election is not the real story.  The real story is the medium
by which the negative spin over _60 Minutes_ was propagated over the
Internet.  To wit, while most Internet consultants and Web designers have
been obsessing over keyword density and Google PageRank, the ever-growing
community of bloggers have quietly become a force to be reckoned with.
>
> The efficacy of blogs in creating and spreading media buzz is not a new
phenomenon.  Since their inception about five years ago, blogs have been
recognized for their ability to generate all sorts of noise, particularly on
search engines.  However, few people outside the blogging community realized
that the noise could become the signal.
>
> The term "blog" first entered the unofficial Internet lexicon in May of
1999 when it was coined by Peter Merholz (< http://www.peterme.com/ >) as a
contraction of the term "weblog."  Shortly thereafter, in August of 1999,
Pyra Labs released the Blogger blogging tool (< http://www.blogger.com/start
>), and blogs quickly became a full-blown online megatrend.  However, for
the uninitiated, the question remains, "What, exactly, is a blog?"
>
> Decades ago, a friend of mine graduated from college with a degree in
electrical engineering, and he was offered a job starting on the ground
floor in a new field called "computers."  He declined, explaining, "On/off
switches . . . How far can it go?"  He ended up working for a defense
contractor and had a notable career as a project manager.  Even so, had my
friend recognized the enormous potential of digital technology, I have no
doubt that he would have gone much, much further.
>
> To be clear, blogs are more than just online journals.  First and
foremost, blogs are the medium for a new type of technology, what marketing
people refer to as a "disruptive technology," and blogs themselves are a
"killer application" that is the most significant killer application since
the advent of the World Wide Web.  Moreover, as noted above, the community
of bloggers have become a force to be reckoned with on the World Wide Web, a
force that can blow established media properties out of the water when they
fail to verify their sources, and game search engine algorithms without even
trying.
>
> Ignore the phenomenon of blogs at your own risk.
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq
>
>

Until earlier this year, Google (< http://www.google.com/ >) had almost total
market dominance of the "organic" search engine space.  (The term "organic" has
emerged recently as a buzzword to distinguish "objectively" determined search
results from search results that are bought and paid for by sponsors.)  However,
when Yahoo! (< http://www.yahoo.com/ >) decided to end its alliance with Google,
I noticed an immediate change in my referral logs and the referral logs of all
of my clients.  To wit, Yahoo! Search (< http://search.yahoo.com/ >) is now on
an equal footing with Google in terms of organic search engine referrals.

The story doesn't end with Yahoo! Search.  As pointed out by numerous analysts,
it is relatively easy for a startup to enter the search engine space, and
Google's branding is not likely to survive the challenge of the many search
engine startups that can deliver appreciably different, high quality search
results to their end users, not to mention the more established companies in the
search engine space, such as Ask Jeeves (< http://www.ask.com/ >) and LookSmart
(< http://search.looksmart.com/ >), or the cutthroat competiton of Microsoft's
MSN Search (< http://search.msn.com/ >) that has been on the horizon ever since
Overture (< http://www.overture.com/ >) proved that search engines can be a
profitable vehicle for online advertising.

A few months ago, world renowned search engine commentator Danny Sullivan
predicted that the search engine space will eventually end up being as diverse
as cable television.  (See <
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3347181 > "Search Wars: 
Battle of the Superpowers," April 29, 2004.)  What is much more likely is that
"meta search" will once again emerge as a popular gimmick.  And in the final
analysis, great deference will be given to "expert" infomediaries.

The original appeal of Google was that it purported to give higher quality
search results by deferring to the authority of link popularity.  However, in a
post-Google Internet, "organic" search results will be heavily influenced across
the board by specific individuals with way too much time on their hands, as is
now the case with A-list bloggers.  (See <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2259 > "Blogs - Quietly Moving from
Noise to Signal.")  In other words, as far as search engines are concerned, what
is noteworthy or newsworthy will be determined by the lowest common denominator.

In a post-Google Internet, the truth will still be out there, and everyone will
know where to look for it, but few people will care.  Then, as now, great
emphasis will be placed on sensational news items, and few people will take the
time to focus on issues and topics that would make the world a better place to
live if said issues and topics were better understood.  Then, as now, people
will defer to the anonymous authority of the crowd when setting their indexing
and search priorities rather than thinking for themselves.  Even so, then, as
now, there will be a handful of intellectual stalwarts who will offer the
Internet's equivalent of The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour (aka The News Hour with
Jim Lehrer).

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq

Well our old friend Steve Thomas posted this message in the WWA Forums
(dated September 18, 2004)

----------

steve
Head Honcho

Registered: Apr 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 169

Xoron shutting down
Hello folks.

I just wanted to give the few members that are still left formal notice that
we will be shutting down Xoron as we know it in the next 30 days.

I'll be creating a new site based on Wherewithal core technology, but it
will not be called Xoron, and it will work somewhat differently (hence the
decision to make a clean break with the current database and start
completely new). It is *possible* that you may be able to leverage some of
your previous work, and it is *more likely* that we will allow you to at
least view the old data, but I can't make any promises yet.

Stay tuned to Xoron to see what is next. I'll do my best to get things going
again.

Steve.