Guidelines For This Forum, Please?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Quadrille

Most of the readers of this forum have considerable experience in Matters Of The Web; indeed, I'm happy to admit that most have much more knowledge and experience that I'll get in many years ...

So surely there should be some minimum standard for "Search Engine Insider Reports" ?

1. For a start, basic fact checking should be required.

2. Where appropriate (for example, if an organization or person is being attacked) there should be at least an effort to seek a defense or opposing view.

3. Articles should be 'peer reviewed' before publication - ie at least one person with related knowledge and experience should critically read the work in advance. This can avoid embarassment and protect reputations.

Simple measures like these would have prevented recent work which had clearly not been properly researched; was a very one sided attack with no attempt to see or pose another view.

Even I could have advised the author to think again and tighten up the arguments before going public.

I am not rehearsing the same arguments here; I am suggesting an effort is made to leave that behind and prevent a recurrence.

the author was reporting what other people felt. i'm sorry that you don't see that has research.

the point of the article in question was to point out how personal prejudice can affect the approval process at DMOZ. a very valid issue, judging from all of the reactions.

as for the tightening of the argument, i feel i represented those who had gripes quite well and i'm sorry if you don't agree with their points of view, but obviously they were valid.

later this week, there will be a follow-up article for you guys to reflect upon.

[Quadrille]

i feel i represented those who had gripes quite well and i'm sorry if you don't agree with their points of view, but obviously they were valid.

Of course they were valid; every opinion is valid.

That's not really the issue.

The issue is whether A Bunch Of Gripes qualifies as a "Search Engine Insider Report".

Your forum; your standards. Don't go down in history as the man who said "I Won't Raise My Standards For Anybody"

Guess I'll leave you to it.

[Chris]

i'll ask you this:

is there an issue when an approval process into one of the most popular internet directories is interrupted by personal bias?

that's how this subject was approached. the gripes you mentioned had a story relating to the approval being affected by personal reasons by the editorial staff, except for the first one, which was an attempt at humor.

[paulhiles]

Always refreshing to hear good old fashioned common sense and straightforward views expressed, great post Quadrille.

Paul

[Quadrille]

Is there an issue when an approval process into one of the most popular internet directories is interrupted by personal bias?

Of course there's an issue; one that needs discussing.

The issue here is how it should be discussed; and I'm suggesting applying some basic journalistic standards.

1. fact checking - as discussion following your piece has shown, the facts were selective, and some have been able to conclude that you were deliberately twisting the facts; in a carefully written article, you should never give people such an opportunity (right or wrong!)

2. Right of reply - when you take up an issue which features disgruntled folk and their grievances, a basic courtesy is to offer the victim a chance of defence; if that is not possible, then it might be reasonable to suggest what possible defences are available. To write an 'insider' article which appears to assume that every complaint is legitimate, justified, sane and sensible is no more than muck raking; finding aggrieved parties is always a doddle; presenting that in a form that encourages debate (not a witch hunt) is the core of journalism.

3. Peer review. If you wish to publish articles which are contentious, that's absolutely fine; go for it. But take 5 minutes to get someone to read it for you, to point out gross errors and injustices, and maybe suggest points that could enrich the article.

In a nutshell "Go for Quality" - the rewards are greater, the satisfaction is greater - and you won't get folk like me whinging at you ;)

And that is my last word!

[jawn_tech]

as for the tightening of the argument, i feel i represented those who had gripes quite well and i'm sorry if you don't agree with their points of view, but obviously they were valid.

Well said, CRich. They were very valid and worth reporting, and I wouldn't change a thing. The article was entirely appropriate and justified, and was an accurate reporting of the opinion of a majority of people in this field.

I'm sorry you're being criticized by a few, and you are being much more than generous by doing a follow-up article, which is more generosity on your part than is warranted.

The standards already in place, which you have always maintained, is entirely appropriate for this venue, which is a FORUM.

Thank you for your outstanding work, which is both entertaining and enlightening.


________________________
"If you've got an issue, here's a tissue." Austin Power's Fazha

[jawn_tech]

offer the victim a chance of defence

Please. Like some crisis center counseling is needed for the "victim". Anyway, those with opposing views were given an opportunity. It's called a FORUM.

(not a witch hunt)

Totally imagined.

In a nutshell "Go for Quality" - the rewards are greater, the satisfaction is greater - and you won't get folk like me whinging at you

He aimed for quality and hit the bullseye. Whining shows up in any topic, whether there's gripes about Google, Yahoo, or any other 'service'. The difference is, people in those situations agree to disagree. We don't have 'defenders' taking it to such heart in cult-like fashion.

[cbp]

jawn_tech - I essentially agree with your response. The original article did report the opinions of others, but what it did not do is report (or investigate) the facts behind things like, for example, the submission history (ie spam) of those with the opinions being expressed. As as come out in the 2 threads, and IMHO, the opinions they have are 'null and void' in the context that they are blaming DMOZ for a problem brought on by themselves.

I think that is the problem that quadrille may be alluding to (Please correct me if I am wrong).

CBP

[Maximilian]

< self edited >

[pne]

I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion (it wasn't really a debate) generated by the original article.

Not really sure whether there's any obligation to be fair, balanced or anything else.

It reminds me of a radio interview I did years ago with a journalist known for his "robust" (i.e. controversial, rude) opinions. I had a talk with one opf his researchers beforehand who said, in reply to my question about his lack of impartiality, "brian knows fights make good radio".

What these threads have done is to increase exposure, get posters blood up and so on. Maybe it's not journalism but it's sure good marketing.

Keep up the good work.

pne

[jawn_tech]

I encourage both sides to keep up discussion as long as both are interested, and have something new to bring to the table. Some may not like how the discussion went, and have a tendency to blame the one responsible for its origin.

As far as the topic goes (not the process), I see things as business as usual. I've been known to criticize/defend Google in the same day, for discussion's sake. I doubt someone is weeping on the other end. In the DMOZ debate, I'm not so sure. (on both sides!)

IMO, the article was to report the opinions, to generate discusion. The value of DMOZ was mentioned, but wasn't expounded upon because it's a 'given'. The rest was left for discussion, where anyone in the world has an opportunity to voice in. Mission accomplished.

Terms like 'attacked', and 'victimized' are far fetched.

To say this is breaking any journalistic rules is poppycock. Incidentally, every venue of media has its own 'rules'. What goes for TV is different than radio, which differs from print. There is also commentary. This kind is a discussion generator. Talk about quality! Give that boy a raise.

Anway, just like DMOZ doens't owe anyone anything, neither does WPW.

---------
ps: you've done a fine job yourself, cbp, IMO.

[gworld]

CRich, you have done a greet job of telling the truth and if anything you have been too kind to DMOZ but telling the truth very seldom wins you a popularity contest.

The 2 thread on the board and all the posting from the real webmasters showed that the majority agrees with you while DMOZ had no defenders except their own editors.

This is a sensative subject for editors since it threatens to stop the gravy train, so do not be surprised if they start to call you spammer. Very popular world with DMOZ crowd when they can not discuss the issues.

This is a great forum and while most users would discuss the issues in a logical and civilized manners, some of the moderators will just use name calling instead of discussions and delete the posts of people with different views.

I do not know shoebox or his views (since it gets deleted so fast that I did not have a chance to read it), or if I agree or disagree with it but any time that some one tries to censur and delete the opposing views there is something seriously wrong.

Democracy and free speech must be the corner stone of any serious forum since the forums are for discussion and exchange of ideas. I hope you will open the thread "in defence of DMOZ" very soon and let shoebox discuss his/hers opinions for all to see and judge since I could not find any posting rules that states " You shall not critisize DMOZ".

[rich_ord]

Well said gworld!

I'm the CEO of iEntry, Inc. which owns this forum.

We have unlocked all locked DMOZ topics.

There is nothing wrong with a lively debate and that's all this is. I've read all the posts on DMOZ and see nothing wrong with any of them.

WebProWorld is a forum that does not stifle alternative points of view. We are not going to censor opinions at WebProWorld.

A great forum has a wide diversity of opinion. Btw, I was an editor at DMOZ when it first started. I think DMOZ is a good directory, but it is not perfect and it does have power (thanks to Google) and therefore people who submit their sites expect a certain level of fairness. There is nothing wrong with discussing this in WebProWorld. After all, WebProWorld is a Discussion Forum.

Thanks,

Rich Ord
CEO, iEntry, Inc.
http://www.ientry.com

[gworld]

Originally Posted by rich_ord

We have unlocked all locked DMOZ topics.

There is nothing wrong with a lively debate and that's all this is. I've read all the posts on DMOZ and see nothing wrong with any of them.

WebProWorld is a forum that does not stifle alternative points of view. We are not going to censor opinions at WebProWorld.

A great forum has a wide diversity of opinion.
................
................
There is nothing wrong with discussing this in WebProWorld. After all, WebProWorld is a Discussion Forum.

Thanks,

Rich Ord
CEO, iEntry, Inc.
http://www.ientry.com

Thank you, Thank you. There is always nice to hear from people who still believe in Freedom of Speech, Fair play and Ethical Business Practice. It is this kind of attitude that makes this a great forum for the webmasters. Keep up the good work.

[cbp]

We have unlocked all locked DMOZ topics.

They were only locked because one poster decided to start spamming with repeated copies of the same post - at one stage there were >8 in one of the threads. In all >20 were deleted from both threads (I lost count as they were being posted faster than I could delete). I was not prepred to keep spending this amount of time doing this becasue of one idiot --> threads locked to stop it.

I have not done any other editing function in this thread and have been reluctant to, until now. Enough was enough - there were plenty of forum rules being broken. However, what I will do is just move the message to quarantine for another mod to do the actual editing and then return it. In the case of the spammer above, there first message was sent to quarantine as it did not comply with the forum rules(it has now been edited by someone else and retuned). A note was left for them to that effect --> they went ballistic with the spam. I expect them to be banned.

CBP

[rich_ord]

Based on your statement that they were spamming I will have Mike ban the person.

Thanks,

[cbp]

Based on your statement that they were spamming I will have Mike ban the person.

There is a lengthy thread of posts in the internal forum on this sequence of events.

CBP

[gworld]

Originally Posted by rich_ord

Based on your statement that they were spamming I will have Mike ban the person.

Thanks,

I do not know shoebox and I am not familiar with his opinions but as I remember, he asked if he is allowed to write in the thread or he should not waste his time since it will be deleted. cbp answered that he could and then moved/deleted his post as soon as he posted. I think the following spamming was the result of his frustration. I don't in anyway support spamming or other childish act like it but I do not believe a moderator job is to delete opposing views either.

In this case I think it is both parties fault and to be fair, either both should be forgiven or if shoesbox is banned for spamming then the moderator statue should be taken away from cbp since he was as responsible as shoebox.

I believe the best course of action is to forgive both parties and instead try to encourage constractive discussion since banning people seldom solves any problem.

[crankydave]

cbp answered that he could and then moved/deleted his post as soon as he posted.

Not true. The poster asked if they could speak freely without being deleted and cbp specifically pointed out that posts were to be within the guidelines of WPW rules.

Dave

[cbp]

I do not know shoebox and I am not familiar with his opinions but as I remember, he asked if he is allowed to write in the thread or he should not waste his time since it will be deleted

That was not shoebox, that was verbatim (or something like that) - they have not come back to post.

cbp answered that he could and then moved/deleted his post as soon as he posted

You wrong again.

CBP

[mikmik]

the author was reporting what other people felt. i'm sorry that you don't see that has research.

Hmmm, seems that my posts on the matter have disappeared into thin air.

We have unlocked all locked DMOZ topics.

There is nothing wrong with a lively debate and that's all this is. I've read all the posts on DMOZ and see nothing wrong with any of them.

Hmmm, seems that my posts on the matter have disappeared into thin air. But only the ones where I point out WPW's apparent biased report, showing that CRich was not fairly showing the authors' opinion, but using selective quoting to present the most controversial side only.


WebProWorld is a forum that does not stifle alternative points of view. We are not going to censor opinions at WebProWorld.

That is a lie.

[mikmik]

Why do I get the impression WPW is turning into a tabloid?

I say consider the source when sweeping conclusions are made by some people. I cannot see where stating that DMOZ is crooked or this and that based on a personal experience has any relevance to a reasoned debate.

Every attempt at name calling and judgement denigrates the opinion giver, in my view. It just sounds to much like self pity and sour grapes. This thread is full of slanderous accusations and libel, and I am embarasses.

You are 100% correct, PNE, the more popular, and bigger a presense something is - organization etc. - the more people show up that have 'proof' of corruption.

In my experience, the ones who complain the most vehemently and make the damningest conclusions and judgements are painting a picture of their own beleifs and way of conduct.

I know two editors that bust their backs editing, and they are very considerate and honest people, IMO, but they never talk about corruption or fighting with the powers-that-be or other editors.

They tell of numerous and stiffling amounts of poorly thought out or outright fraudulent submissions that make it difficult to do their job properly.

There may be bad asses among the people at DMOZ, there are many places. But a full out conspiracy? That would mean that AOL and Yahoo and whoever else, Google perhaps, are all in cahoots?

Oh ya, I am not listed in DMOZ. I have felt frustrated a couple of times with submissions, but I never came to the conclusion that DMOZ is corrupt.

Can be improved? Sure. Corrupt? Prove it

rich_ord

mikmik wrote:
Why do I get the impression WPW is turning into a tabloid?


WebProWorld is a forum for discussion. People have been stating their experiences with Dmoz and their opinions. That does not make WebProWorld a tabloid! Could you please show me excerpts of posts that make you come to this conclusion?

Quote:
Every attempt at name calling and judgement denigrates the opinion giver, in my view. It just sounds to much like self pity and sour grapes. This thread is full of slanderous accusations and libel, and I am embarasses.


I've read all of the Dmoz related posts and I think there has been a heavy dose of name calling by both sides. Using words like "self pity" and "sour grapes" and "slanderous accusations" are name calling by you. I don't believe it is appropriate to slam posters for their opinion in a forum. But, that's just my opinion, feel free to slam me for it.

My reply

nowhere to be found. The infamoud 'cut'n'paste' dictionary post.

Mikes reply to that one

gone, the one where he patronizes me with belittling remarks like 'thanks so much for providing the definitions blah blah.

another from mike

Not only allow and condone... encourage. You got 2 cents? Bring it. If it doesn't hold up it doesn't hold up. Here again, that's what a good forum does. If somebody brings some flimsy argument it aint gonna stand very long in an active forum. Precisely what you would want I would think. It's precisely what I want anyway.

My arguments in reply to rich? Your reply to that?
Off topic now?

Mike

Maximum-Beauty.com wrote:
Howdy Mike,

Quite frankly, I'm NOT disappointed and disillusioned with WPW or your take on forums or these DMOZ threads. I never thought I'd say this 'bout a coon-skin cap-wear'n dude from Kentucky, but I like your direct banter & honest human valuations here.



Who told you about my hat?

Guidelines? What about the guidelines covering post deletion, the protocal for informing the members about what is happening with their posts?

When did this get put in?

At this point, you are certainly welcomed and encouraged to continue participating in the forum. As long as things remain rational and civil, I'm up for anything. Things must remain rational and civil however...

Damage control?

I have always, always, always, stood up for the membership here, and I have alwaysd fought for the integrity of WPW. I am not the only one, by any means.
But I also remember the episode when I was a mod, when I was upset over a dangerous post with a link to a site that downloaded trojans from GAIN and others.
I tried to get something done about that. I callesd someone on their lack of 'team spirit' in protecting the membership, and it got very ugly, very fast.

WHY DO PEOPLE GO SO FAR OUT OF THEIR WAY TO ESCAPE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY?

You want guidelines? Good, they give you credibility and respect when you stick to them consistently, if they are commendable to begin with.

But this treatment of me and other good people has to bew addressed. That is one guideline I suggest.

This is about providing a forum for members, for its marketting purposes or whatever.
Bad PR comes from capricious treatment and standards. Enough people have notice, and these add up. Remember the CSS tutorial thing? I got emails asking what went on there. People notice.

[mike]

MikMik

Your 'dictionary post' and several others were removed from the odp thread because they had nothing to do with odp. Simple as that. They would have been moved out of that thread on any forum you want to go to.

-Mike

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Mike

several others were removed from the odp thread because they had nothing to do with odp. Simple as that. They would have been moved out of that thread on any forum you want to go to.

Mike,

Thanks for the clarification for the removal of the off-topic banter in the one DMOZ thread. If deletion of humorous off-topic exchange is the criteria for removal, then I reluctantly encourage you to take a look at the last few pages of the other DMOZ thread - it'll need some weeding as well. I, for one, will be very hesitant to post responses within threads other than my own. Thanks again for the heads up...

[mike]

I have made a post in the mod forum in regard to such off topic exchanges. My thoughts on the matter are; so long as these exchanges aren't protracted and jeapordizing the direction of the thread, a simple 'let's keep it on topic' post from the mod should be sufficient.

[Maximilian]

Mike,

Again, thank you - this sounds like a positive move in the right direction. I do appreciate your leadership on this subject. No Kentucky kiss butt intended. (smiling)

Suggestions Offered For Future Posts Within Heavily-Debate Threads:

- Be respectful of others' opinions
Allow your fellow members to voice their opinions WITHOUT CENSORSHIP.

- DO NOT deliberately start arguments. Debates are great, as long as they remain respectful!

- Always try to "give" back to our community. For each time you find help or answers here at WebProWorld, try to help someone else out in return. You may find that what goes around comes around.

- Give people a little time to respond to your requests. There's a lot going on in these forums and it may take a little time for people to notice and respond to your request. Please be patient.

- DO NOT just make a negative statement and leave the person hanging out to dry. Although you may consider yourself to be an "expert" now, try to remember that we were all new and learning once upon a time. Take it easy on your fellow members!

- Do NOT make threats or implied threats towards other members - even if you are upset - take 5 minutes to cool down before responding.

- DO NOT Make Inappropriate or Offensive Posts - including threats, harrassment, swearing, prejudice, slander or deliberate insults/name-calling, or other negative remarks about WebProWorld, its moderators and administrators, iEntry, or your fellow members. Even if this is just your own personal opinion, RESPECT YOUR FELLOW MEMBERS.

- Do NOT drag another member's personal site into a forum discussion unless the discussion directly involves that site OR if the member brings his or her own site into the discussion first. There's no point in ruining a good debate by accidentally (or intentionally) offending someone with a personal comment.

- WebProWorld believes in integrity and respects what other forums have to offer. Because we realize members of WebProWorld may also be members of other forums, do not try to degrade or discredit other forums, their administrators and moderators, or their members. This includes slander and other offensive comments.

[mikmik]

mike

MikMik

Your 'dictionary post' and several others were removed from the odp thread because they had nothing to do with odp. Simple as that. They would have been moved out of that thread on any forum you want to go to.

-Mike

What about this?

Guidelines? What about the guidelines covering post deletion, the protocal for informing the members about what is happening with their posts?

What happenned to my 'edit' button?

mike

I have made a post in the mod forum in regard to such off topic exchanges. My thoughts on the matter are; so long as these exchanges aren't protracted and jeapordizing the direction of the thread, a simple 'let's keep it on topic' post from the mod should be sufficient.

Took a bit of doing to get you to see the light, eh? LMAO

WHY DO PEOPLE GO SO FAR OUT OF THEIR WAY TO ESCAPE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY?

Anyways, welcome to the 'New WebProWorld Order'. Thanks for all the notifications, direct answers, in short - respect.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by mikmik

What about this?

What happenned to my 'edit' button?

Mik Mik,

You make an extremely good point. The wpw forum guidelines do state that the moderator is to private message a poster when their post is off-topic or against wpw formum policy, so that the poster can be given the opportunity to rectify the post by editing it. Without the edit button this whole process is mute.

Interestingly, it is this very situation that caused me to take actions in a quiet protest, for post removal prior to notification. that got the "edit button" banned.

[mikmik]

Quote:
MikMik

Your 'dictionary post' and several others were removed from the odp thread because they had nothing to do with odp. Simple as that.

-Mike

They were about the quality of the 'report' and the replies. They were on topic. You and others replied to them. You nevwer removed them for a day or two, get continued to post.

They would have been moved out of that thread on any forum you want to go to.

Sure, whatever you say.


So what are the guidelines for editing posts, as regearding notifying the poster? I am still choked that you would be so presumptuous as to arbitrarily decide what is proper or not, without at least notifying us, as has always been the case in the past.

I, for one, have never but been completely understanding, when notified, and up till now it has happened one, with a few edits thrown in.

[mike]

I replied to your post, I also removed my replies. A critique of the thread itself and the topic of the thread are not the same thing. If you have a problem with the subject matter of a post or some other practice/policy this forum is where those types of things should be brought.

The subject of the thread was a DMOZ issue, our posts re:the validity of the subject were unrelated to DMOZ. We were talking about WebProWorld in the DMOZ thread and I still think those posts should and would be moved out of any moderated forum. They were in there for a day or two, yes, but they weren't furthering the DMOZ discussion at all. They were debating a completely separate issue.

As far as private notification on moves, I'll leave that to the discretion of the mods doing the moving. If that is a policy Brittany followed so be it, but I won't be doing it. That isn't something listed in the official rules, if it was at some point it has since been removed (I didn't do it) and I can't find any reference to any obligation to notify on moves. That said, if it were listed among the rules I would change it. I haven't been in too many forums of this size where mods served private notice of moves other than to leave a public shadow for moved threads. Edits are noted and timestamped in each message edited, so they shouldn't be an issue.

[mike]

As for the edit feature.

The edit feature will now be titled to your WebProWorld rank/group. Members will be required to have reached WebPro Veteran status or higher to receive editing ability. WebProVeteran status is defined in terms of post count (200+ and a time element.

I'll be posting more details once the backend work is completed.

[Maximilian]

Hi Mike,

It states on the first offense the moderator will PM the offender. It is my assumption that this is to give the opportunity to edit one's post to fall within the WPW Forum guidlines.

http://www.webproworld.com/rules.html

Forum Abuse Policy:

1st Offense - A polite Private Message from a Moderator pointing out the Forum Rules, in addition to the editing or deletion of the post

2nd Offense - Public warning on the message board plus deletion of post

3rd Offense - Moderators will discuss and possibly delete the user from the WebProWorld forum

[mike]

Well that assumes that any off topic or misplaced post is abuse, which I don't consider it to be.

Abuse is posting your affiliate link for example, the mod will then notify you with a warning and request that you stop doing that.

Going off topic can rise to the level of abuse, but generally only when it's malicious.

The warning schedule outlined in the rules is to let you know the steps that are generally followed when folks are banned. In other words, you don't want those.

[Maximilian]

When you do post the new guidelines I will be the first to read them. I read the current ones & certainly expected the moderators to follow them as stated.

To avoid confusion among the mass is why we have three branches of Government:

1.) one makes law
2.) one defines what law means
3.) one enforces that definition of law

While this is a mere forum - the above ideals of government are both reasonable & appealing to our little 'ol discussion experiment.

[mike]

Again the issue boils down to your interpretation of 'abuse'.

A misplaced or off subject topic doesn't necessarily rise to the level of abuse in most cases. In cases where it does rise to the level of abuse the poster will always be notified. They will be notified because their actions, if they do not change, will lead to the suspension/banning of their accounts.

We aren't changing any policy there. That's what it says and that's what we're going to do.

[mike]

Also in the guidelines you reference, it doesn't say the poster will be given the opportunity to edit their post, it simply states that the post may be edited.

[Maximilian]

Hi Mike -

Keep in mind I do mean the following in the spirit of humor & levity -

What Max has learned from this thread:

1.) Mike makes law
2.) Mike defines what law means
3.) Mike enforces that definition of law

(Max is smiling)

[mikmik]

Ya, and Mike does put up with a lot, from the likes of me, eh? LOL

It is easy to point fingers without understanding all the responsibilities and time constraints for the admin and mods.

I am impressed with what is happening, so make that another vote in favor.

Mods, admin, thanks all!

Don't forget: Mike has great handle :O)

[mike]

Actually, based on Max's last post I was seriously considering renaming myself 'Dr Moreau'.

[mikmik]

Better make that 'McMoreau' :O)