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.