Anonymousey

There have always been people who feel that the hard-won right to Freedom of Speech entitles them to be as insulting or hurtful towards others as they like. Sometimes they are sufficiently proud of their "candour" that they are happy for their identities to be known, but the more craven or cautious among them have always hidden behind anonymity.

In previous times, the anonymous "poison pen" letter was used to attack, frighten or villify someone, and was usually rude, insulting, or downright malicious about a person's life or character.
In the case of my own thoughts and opinions as expressed in this blog, one of the posts which has attracted the strongest response (as I expected it would) is "DMOZ Editor Corruption Shock". However, that post is now almost two years old, and has been updated twice since then (in August 2009 and July 2010), but I continue to receive nasty comments on the original post, obviously by people who have not noticed that it is now rather dated.

I do not censor sensible comments, even if I disagree with their content, or even if the writer wishes to hide his/her identity. But in my view (and it is my blog, after all) I don't see any value to anyone in publishing anonymous rants which are usually pointless and frequently illiterate.

Of course I have experienced my share of hurtful criticism in several areas of my life, some of which was undoubtedly justified, but I absolutely refuse to take seriously the accusations and criticisms of

• those who abuse a position of authority to belittle people "beneath" them
• bullies of any type 
• those who are purely self-interested (ie with their own unacknowledged and unrelated agenda)
• those who have shown themselves to be deceitful or manipulative
• ... and certainly those who send anonymous "hate mail" or blind criticism  

So, Mr/Ms "Anonymous", if you wish me to take note of your emails or publish your comments, please ensure they indicate some thought on your part, are relevant to the issue in question, contain at least one original opinion or observation, and are written with some semblance of grammar and syntax, rather than being just a string of miss-spelled invective.
If you can't manage that, save yourself the time.

Deconstructive Criticism

To my disappointment, the title is not a witty neologism, but a long-standing (if terminally obscure) literary term. I tried hard to understand the definition, really I did, but in the end I still prefer my own:

"Deconstructive criticism is the opposite of constructive criticism"

"But surely the opposite is 'unconstructive' or even 'non-constructive'?", you might say.
No. In my mind those are terms for criticism which does nothing at all, neither helpful nor damaging:

For me, construction means putting things together, so the opposite should be "deconstruction", or taking things apart. Not destruction, you understand, which means destroying, but more the dismantling of something which has been built.

Now that we have my definitions sorted out, how does this apply to criticism? Some examples might help.

Example 1
Constructive criticism: "You have obviously worked hard on this, but I notice a few things which could be improved. Perhaps we can work on them together?"
Unconstructive criticism: "I don't like the way you've done this."
Destructive criticism: "What a mess you've made, as usual."

Deconstructive criticism: "You've spent way too much time on this, and you still haven't got it right."

Example 2
Constructive criticism: "I know how much you like that colour, but I'm not sure it's the best choice this time."

Unconstructive criticism: "I don't like that colour at all."

Destructive criticism: "You have never had any colour sense."

Deconstructive criticism: "What on earth makes you think that colour combination works?"

Example 3
Constructive criticism: "I appreciate your point of view, but I see things differently. Can we talk about it some more?"

Unconstructive criticism: "I totally disagree."

Destructive criticism: "You always get things wrong."

Deconstructive criticism: "Where on earth did you get that idea? It's completely ridiculous."

Example 4
Constructive criticism: "You have a wonderful way with words, but I think your point might be lost in the detailed explanation you provide."

Unconstructive criticism: "I have absolutely no idea what you mean."

Destructive criticism: "You always bore everyone to death."

Deconstructive criticism: "Why can't you just use simple language instead of this rubbish?"

Example 5
Constructive criticism: "You devote so much time and effort to this company/project/organisation, but perhaps it might be time to take a step back and re-assess priorities?"

Unconstructive criticism: "Nobody should spend as much time as you do on this."

Destructive criticism: "You are not nearly as useful as you seem to think you are.

Deconstructive criticism: "Most of what you've done is completely unnecessary, and the rest has to be checked and corrected anyway."

I hope you can get a sense of the demoralising effect of deconstructive criticism, which is a more personal attack on your own values and abilities, and therefore harder to ignore, than the obvious generalisations of the other two negative responses.
In other words, deconstructive criticism is nothing more than a deliberate insult, and like all insults says more about the person delivering it than the one to whom it is addressed.  Criticism is an essential component of growth and development, but only if it is constructive. Accept no substitutes! 

Several Gains ... and a Pain

Some You Win
My new-found passion for researching my family history continues apace, and like many other amateur genealogists I am finding that the frustrating dead ends and missing connections are well compensated by serendipitous discoveries.
The biggest challenges I face are that not only are most people from my parents' generation long gone (and therefore unable to identify piles of tantalisingly unlabelled photographs), but I am largely unacquainted with even the close relatives of my own generation. I am delighted to say that this is gradually being remedied. Thanks to the scary internet, I have tracked down several of my previously unknown first cousins, and in most cases they have been as excited as myself to make the connection. The fact that a couple of them live in the same city as me is astonishing, seeing our families originated 2000 miles away.
I have not yet discovered anyone particularly famous or infamous perched in my family tree, but I am proud to report that my direct ancestors and current first-degree relatives have the following accomplishments to their credit:

• pioneer farmers who established large sheep properties in arid bushland
• schoolteachers who opened the first schools in their areas
• the introduction of the practice of "dipping" sheep for protection against parasites
• the first mayor of a now-famous town
• an internationally recognised musician and an even more well-known artist
• numerous brave soldiers in the two World Wars
• a nurse who endured malaria and dysentery to treat soldiers in WW I
• a pioneering news journalist and broadcaster
• an extraordinarily generous (but very private) philanthropist

Some You Lose
It's always sad to witness the deliberate destruction of something which means a lot, and the ongoing implosion of the once-great Open Directory Project has been painful to watch. I have my own theories about when and how this started, but even non-editors have been able to see the disastrous effects of the misguided and incredibly inept DMOZ 2.0 "upgrade" last August.
Like thousands of other DMOZ editors I was forced to abandon my role as the whole infrastructure and editorial process disintegrated in front of our horrified gaze. Of course we were continually assured that such "glitches" were only to be expected after a major system upgrade, and that normal functions would soon be restored. We wanted so badly to believe that, but the gurgling sound was growing louder.

After more than a month things were barely any better, editing was still unworkably bug-ridden, data was still being lost, and impatience was growing. The repeated reassurances from ODP management sounded more optimistic than realistic by then, but many of us kept hoping they would eventually make things right. I decided to leave them to it for a few months, rather than experiencing daily exasperations about all the new bugs being discovered. So I was astonished to return to do some editing the other day, almost six months after the "upgrade", only to find that not only are most of the basic editing functions still not working properly, but that even the high level reassurances have not been updated in all that time!

Apparently not just the actual working editors, but even those who manage DMOZ have given up and lost interest.

Having been an enthusiastic and dedicated ODP volunteer for many years, it has been very sad indeed for me to watch the directory come to such an inglorious end, and I am sure many many other editors feel the same. The fact that it happened as the result of deliberate actions and decisions by those in authority makes it even more distressing, but we are (and always were) at the mercy of those whose positions of power are not accompanied by either aptitude or altruism.

Shhh. Don't Look Now, But ...

Like many other site owners, I am interested in who my visitors are, how they get here, how long they stay, and which pages they read.
For some people this is essential information in optimising their site for commercial purposes, but in my case it is simply idle curiosity about patterns revealed by the statistics. As you can see from the logo at the bottom right of this page, I use a free Sitemeter account to track visits, and although it shows very few details (just the IP address, for the technically minded among you), the records do provide occasional harmless amusement.

For example, every time I mention "DMOZ" or "ODP", or (nowadays) "DMOZ 2.0", and especially if I write about "Volunteer Admins", there is a flurry of visits from the same IP addresses.
Of course it may be sheer coincidence, but when those addresses match the countries or cities where DMOZ Admins live, I remind myself that I don't actually believe in coincidences.

But it is even more entertaining to see which blog posts attract the most general attention. Besides the above visits from people curious to see what I am saying about them, random visitors seem particularly drawn to posts about the following topics (in approximate order):

1. British railways (yes really!)
2. Ugliness
3. Piratical eye injuries
4. Bullying 

An eclectic bunch of topics, to be sure, and I guess some people might ponder their sociological implications.

Not me though - I just like sitting around, watching people come and go.

 

Beastly Backstabbing

There are few blows more shocking and painful than the betrayal of a "friend".
Being lied to by someone you trust is one of the most lasting and hurtful of all experiences.

It not only demonstrates one's own poor judgement, but highlights the widespread dishonesty and self-interest that we so often try to overlook.

Today I spent a happy hour or so chatting easily to an old friend, enjoying our shared interests and generally finding pleasure in each other's company.

Or so I thought.

How galling,

how humiliating,
how absolutely infuriating to discover just a few hours later that the conversation was a complete pretence.

This so-called friend had carefully refrained from mentioning a recent promotion that meant my "friendship" was now nothing more than a chance to gather information to my disadvantage.

What a despicable trick.

The deception is all the more distressing because of the years of friendship and trust that were so rapidly and carelessly discarded in the cause of self-glorification.



Loyalty? Honesty?


What a naive fool I am to assume these things are as important to others as they are to me.

ODP/DMOZ: 2 bad, so sad

Prompted by a recent comment/question on my last post, it's probably time for an update on how the DMOZ 2.0 debacle is proceeding.
Depending on your point of view, the answer is

• a) badly: the situation is deteriorating, 
• b) well: the debacle itself is growing daily, or
• c) Shhhh. "Don't mention the war".

Does anyone remember Simon and Garfunkel? Probably not, but they had a song with lyrics very slightly like these:

AOL only knows, AOL makes its plan
The information's unavailable to the mortal man.
Admins keep on reassuring, try to justify their name,
Pretending DMOZ 2.0's the answer, when in fact it's slip sliding away

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the more they try to fix it, the more it's slip sliding away

I have just returned from several weeks' holiday (in fact if you've lost interest in DMOZ 2.0, along with most of the editors, then you are welcome to have a look at my holiday snaps here instead), and I expected to find that most of the apparently unforeseen bugs had been fixed. I say "unforeseen", because as I have previously noted, hundreds of bugs slipped through the net during three years of development and several months of intensive beta testing by paid staff and many volunteer editors.

By the way, these bugs are not minor problems with esoteric functions - we are talking major disruptions to many of the most basic editing processes. Fundamental functions are still unavailable to most editors, although the higher levels of editor seem to have a lot fewer problems. Funny, that.

The robust insistence of the powers-that-be that "everything will soon be working just fine" is starting to sound almost farcical, more than two months after the "third-time-lucky" launch. In addition, their almost universal disinterest in the continuing problems faced by ordinary editors is not just rude, but does nothing to provide the sort of guidance and support for which their positions were created. Of course this is a generalisation, and a small but much appreciated number of Admins seem to be actively involved in bailing water out of the sinking DMOZ 2.0, but in general, the highest level editors seem to have vanished. Mind you, it's happened several times before, so we really should not be surprised.

This is pretty much the final straw for me and the ODP. As I have already lamented, I fell victim earlier this year to a prolonged and determined campaign of FUD, which left me in the impossible situation of trying to obey contradictory (and increasingly imperative) instructions from on high. I tried for many months to comply with both sets of demands, but of course it was impossible to "serve two masters" as the saying goes, and the inevitable result was that I was branded as insubordinate and had my much-used permissions peremptorily removed (without even the common courtesy of notifying me, which added insult to injury).

Annnnyway, the current, apparently unstoppable decline of the editor-side of DMOZ has made my restricted permissions even less palatable, so I was ripe for an approach by BOTW to transfer my experience and enthusiasm to their directory. Specifically, they have asked for my assistance with mentoring their own volunteer editors, which was one of my greatest interests in DMOZ.
It is always wonderful to be appreciated, and that is something BOTW has consistently offered its editors, along with a blessed absence of hierarchy, bullying, self-interest, and the sorts of power games which have in recent years made DMOZ unpleasant for so many. I do not expect to be anywhere near as active in BOTW as I have been in the last 6 years in ODP/DMOZ, but I am sure the experience will be a lot more positive than is currently the case in DMOZ.

Postscript (added a week later)
In order to avoid accusations of speaking out of turn (or worse) by publishing the above comments, I made sure to send a similar announcement to the DMOZ Admins themselves. I received a reply which, while thankfully not condemnatory, completely missed the point about why I am shifting my attention and  efforts to BOTW instead of the ODP.
Let me make it very clear that this is absolutely not because I no longer care for DMOZ. I always will care passionately for that directory, its welfare, its growth and its volunteer editor community. I have never lost that dedication despite all the personal distress I have experienced there in the past couple of years. My partial departure now is entirely the result of the actions (and even more the inactions) of most of those who are allegedly in charge. 
If/when they manage to get the directory back on track, make some effort to fulfil the roles for which they were appointed, and without personal agendas and prejudice, I will be back like a shot ... if they'll let me, of course, after speaking out like this. 

DMOZ/ODP 2.0 - Rather a Flop So Far

Well, after more than three years of anticipation, frequent (and increasingly hollow-sounding) promises, months of beta testing, and two aborted installations, DMOZ 2.0 has finally arrived!

"O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”

So do we have dancing in the editorial streets?
Outpourings of joy and gratitude from the volunteer community?
A long-awaited fix for all the problems that arose from the 2006 AOL Server Crash?
A much-needed increase in enthusiasm and productivity?
In short: will I have to eat my skeptical post "DMOZ 2.0 - Nirvana or Neverland"?

In each case the answer is a despondent but unequivocal "No".

It's only been a day or two since the directory came back online after the "third time lucky" upgrade, but the bug reports keep streaming in from disappointed and/or confused editors.
I'm sure the more serious issues will get fixed eventually, but considering how long it has taken to reach even this point, it is very hard not to see the whole thing as a bit of a

Down with FUD! (2)

As I posted a couple of years ago, this is a useful acronym, usually taken to represent "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt".

It is a sneaky but very effective way of undermining or discrediting others, and to quote from my earlier post,

• In marketing or politics, the advantages of changing the direction of someone's loyalties are obvious ...
• In other areas of life it can be used in a more subtle way, by gradually isolating someone from former associates ...
• Sometimes it may achieve nothing more than intellectual satisfaction, or a sense of having influence.

Having seen this technique used to great effect in recent months, in both work and hobby situations, I can now pass on what I have learned. It won't help me, of course, but it may allow others to see what is coming.

FUD Primer

1. Gain a position of authority.
It can be as spurious as you like, but must allow you to humiliate and/or harrass those "beneath" you, without fear of censure.

2. Find a suitable target (or targets, if you have plenty of experience)
Desirable characteristics are an eagerness to contribute, a strong work ethic, and high levels of energy. Such people are easily ridiculed as "needy" - which starts the undermining process.

3. Fear is the Key
Start by demonstrating your "power" in as many subtle ways as you can manage. Ideally, these should be directed at your target in such a way that they completely understand that you hold all the cards.

4. Introduce Uncertainty
Once you have made your target sufficiently apprehensive, you and your colleagues can bombard them with contradictory instructions. If you have made them anxious enough, this will create the pleasing effect of complete confusion, as they will not know which way to jump without landing in trouble. Your work is nearly done.

5. Doubt and Despair
Your victim will be unable to juggle all the conflicting information they receive, and they will inevitably drop one of the balls. This is your cue to act in a suitably decisive manner, humiliating the target in a way that serves as a warning to others.

6. Follow through
It is essential to maintain complete solidarity with your colleagues after such a campaign, in case of tiresome repercussions or even a challenge to your authority. Such insubordination can usually be overcome by subtle harassment and warnings about further punitive actions.

Anti-FUD Tactics

1. Be Brave
Remember what your mother told you about sticks and stones? This stuff hurts, but it does not actually injure you.

2. Retain Your Values
Nobody can take these away from you. These people can ridicule and criticise as much as they like, but only you can revise your ideals.

3. Use Humour
A sense of humour is rare among those who rely on FUD to achieve their goals or justify their positions, so this can be a powerful defence. It could well be seen as insubordination, and punished as such, but a cheery smile can be an unnerving response, and it will make you feel better.

4. Learn to Cope

Remember:

nil desperandum illegitimi carborundum

DMOZ Editor Corruption Shock (3)

I thought I made my point clearly enough the first time I wrote about the relentless campaign of vague, repetitive and unsubstantiated accusations thrown at volunteer editors in the Open Directory Project.

Unfortunately, subsequent insulting comments to this blog showed that those making the allegations had not even read that post, or had missed its message completely. So I tried again, pointing out the obvious flaws in their copycat claims. Sadly, this was equally ineffective, and I continue to receive (and read elsewhere) the same tiresome arguments and insults. I will present one such email later in this post.

But first I'll present the facts again, very simply and in large friendly letters this time.

1. It is always free to suggest a site to ODP/DMOZ ... why pay?
2. DMOZ is not a listing service. Suggested sites are just one of many resources for volunteer editors, who are the only people who can list sites in the directory.
3. Nobody can "get" a site listed, no matter what they might promise hopeful webmasters.
4. Anybody can easily check such claims: is the person named as an editor in that DMOZ category or anywhere else?

• If not, they simply cannot do what they promise.
• If they are listed as an editor, then they already know that requesting or accepting any form of payment will lead to permanent closure of their account. Besides, sites which are the subject of editor bribes (and even attempted bribes) are permanently banned.

Yes, that's right, the sites are permanently banned - even if they are involved in just an offer to pay.

But you don't have to take my word for this. See if you can find any DMOZ listings which have resulted from the thousands of payment offers made on various freelancer sites and webmaster forums.

• If you do find such a listing, you know where to report it. (Of course if you believe that the entire worldwide volunteer community is engaged in a colossal cover-up over a single site, there's not much point in any discussion.)
• If you don't find any such listings, then obviously these ineffectual offers don't "prove" editorial abuse. All they "prove" is that many people don't listen.

As promised, here's part of a typical email I received a few weeks ago, (as usual from "Anonymous"):

"The abuse is real, and it is endemic, and yes it has been going on for years. And I myself has (sic) used the 'report abuse' several times but the email goes into a black hole and you hear nothing further about it. Your arguments about the difficulties of sustaining such corruption are absurd. As soon as a whole bureaucratic structure gets sufficiently corrupted, you think a report to the supervisor is going to fix things? And the charges people are making are far from vague as you claim. Just read the talk: http://www ......."

Let's examine the assertions one at a time.

"The abuse is real, and it is endemic, and yes it has been going on for years."

Three confident statements of "fact", based on who-knows-what invention, supposition, misunderstanding or other faulty logic. We'll never know, because like his fellow campaigners, he doesn't bother to justify his assertion.
I could just as confidently say "The writer of the above letter is almost comically short, with terrible skin and a tendency to waddle."

"And I myself has used the 'report abuse' several times but the email goes into a black hole and you hear nothing further about it."

That dramatic "black hole" is yet another invention, based solely on the fact that he did not receive a reply. Apparently he didn't bother to read the Abuse Reporting FAQ, so I'll quote the relevant part of it here:

"Note: Even if you provide an e-mail address you will not be sent any information: on the report's status or otherwise."

Naturally a reporter may wish to know that his report has been received, so there is a simple way of checking the status. It's described very clearly on the form, but presumably "Anonymous" did not read that bit either.

"Your arguments about the difficulties of sustaining such corruption are absurd."

He is entitled to that assessment, of course, but without justification or explanation it carries no more weight than if I said "And you can't even write properly, so there."
Gratuitous insults do not form an argument.

"As soon as a whole bureaucratic structure gets sufficiently corrupted, you think a report to the supervisor is going to fix things?"

This is unrelated to DMOZ, because there is not "a supervisor", and so the analogy is meaningless.
Abuse reports are read by any number of the most experienced and trusted volunteers, and every genuine report is then appropriately investigated, also by any number of them. [See my earlier comment about irrational conspiracy theories which seek to implicate a huge worldwide community.]

And so we come to his closing argument, which I addressed in the first half of this post.

"And the charges people are making are far from vague as you claim.

Just read the talk: http://www .......".

One last time: the only "proof" of this type of editorial abuse is to show that a specific DMOZ listing has resulted from a specific editor accepting or requesting payment.

Along with other forms of editorial abuse, such actions have never been tolerated, as many removed editors can confirm.

Leadership, Loutism or Blatant Bullying? (2)

When I discussed this issue 3 months ago, I was speaking more or less in the abstract, because it is a subject about which I feel very strongly, and a behaviour I witness far too frequently, in all its many forms.

However, since writing that post, I have unexpectedly found myself in the position of victim, whereas I have always considered myself strong enough to withstand and even expose this sort of unacceptable behaviour.

But as I wrote:

In such situations we all have a responsibility to stand up to bullies and those who similarly misuse their authority. If someone stands alone they are likely to be harassed, ridiculed, or even dismissed from the organisation.

Unfortunately I seem to have an unerring instinct for undertaking battles I can't possibly win, usually on behalf of people less foolhardy than myself. In popular mythology it is frequently possible to defeat overwhelming odds, but the reality is more prosaic, and Goliath usually wins.

Nobody likes to lose - it is always unpleasant and frequently humiliating, but when the winner is a bully and a person in authority, there is a shameful tendency for them to continue kicking the person who is down, knowing there is nobody who can stop them. It's hard to believe that they derive any pleasure or satisfaction from this (although anything is possible), so this post-victory intimidation is presumably in order to make it even more clear to everyone that any similar opposition would be very ill-advised, and the consequences deeply unpleasant.

Unfortunately for me, such a reprehensible misuse of power makes me even more determined to fight back, even if Resistance is Futile.

DMOZ/ODP - finally FUBAR?

Definitions:
a) DMOZ/ODP is the Open Directory Project

b) FUBAR is only one small step from SNAFU

A representation of a) and b) -->

To quote from my gloomy post of almost a year ago,

"DMOZ/ODP ... fills all the criteria for a fertile SNAFU breeding ground: Communication between [editors and management] is sporadic, and rife with misunderstandings due to the very different priorities involved. Every now and then a brave editor will try to point out some of the more damaging "foul-ups", but such impertinence is poorly received, and no changes ever result, despite a bewildering procession of New Staff Members who arrive with great fanfare, announce all sorts of improvements, and then vanish without a trace.
SNAFU, for sure, but at least it keeps going. I only hope it doesn't decline further into FUBAR."

You be the judge ...

• At the end of 2006, there was a major server malfunction at AOL (owner and operator of the project), and DMOZ suddenly vanished from view. It was offline for more than 2 months, but during that whole time, despite many many requests for information, thousands of volunteers (not to mention countless users) were left in the dark about the reasons and/or progress in repairing the problem.
• When the server was finally fixed and the directory became functional again, it transpired that AOL had inadvertently destroyed or lost many of the backup files, meaning that tens of thousands of hours of volunteer work was lost forever. Heroic efforts by a couple of high-level editors resulted in a small fraction of the material being retrieved, but the effects of the missing data are felt every day, even now.
• As if that were not bad enough, many of the internal functions and editor tools were broken in the Crash, making things much harder and more time-consuming for the volunteer editors. In fact, lots of basic features and tools are still broken, more than 3 years later, despite extensive and almost continuous bug reporting by volunteers to paid ODP staff and AOL technicians.
• In addition to the persisting post-Crash problems, hardly a month passes without something else going missing, or failing to work properly, but the answer from AOL is always "We are working hard on DMOZ 2.0, so we can't spend time or resources on DMOZ 1.0."
• Three years ago that seemed a reasonable allocation of priorities, but see "DMOZ 2.0 - Nirvana or Neverland?" and "ODP/DMOZ: Plus ça change" for how thin this excuse has become.

So, what has been the reaction of the international community of volunteer editors to all this?

Many, of course, lost interest during the Crash, and left the project forever.
Others remained, but with greatly reduced activity, preferring to spend more of their hobby time on something less precarious.
Some tried nobly to regain their previous productivity, but then drifted away over the next year or two as a result of the ongoing bugs, data loss, and general decline in community morale.

This leaves very few active and experienced editors to continue building the directory, to assist newer editors, propose and implement improvements, undertake quality control, and perform all the other tasks once shared between a much larger and more enthusiastic community.

But it's not just a matter of numbers.

The apparent disinterest of AOL and paid ODP staff, the lack of effective leadership, the continuing bugs and frequent server slowdowns, and the relentless accusations and complaints directed at volunteers ... is it any wonder that the editorial community has lost the sense of companionable enthusiasm and dedication it once had?
Not to mention the unfortunate tendency of some people in positions of power to react badly to any perceived criticism or disagreement from those they are supposed to be leading and encouraging.

It is so sad that something which has such tremendous potential seems to be falling victim to so many fixable problems.

Update 12 June 2010

A major part of the editor interface has been broken for over a week now, with many tools completely out of action, along with what anyone might consider to be essential user features such as the ability to report editorial abuse.

An all-too familiar situation for those editors who have not lost all patience with these breakdowns and moved on to less frustrating hobbies.

ODP/DMOZ and NDU: Goliaths 2, David 0

In common with other conscientious people, I always try to fulfil my responsibilities to the people I serve. The trouble is that these people are almost never the ones who have been put in charge. This leads to constant battles with "management" as I try to represent the interests of the people I believe I actually work for.

In the case of the Open Directory Project, my efforts have always been for the benefit of fellow volunteer editors and the average web surfer, and at Notre Dame University, my sole motivation is to provide the medical students with the best education possible.

Unfortunately these goals, simple though the y are, frequently run aground on the treacherous sandbanks of bureaucracy and self-interest which characterise the management of most large organisations.

This has happened twice in the last 2 weeks, and in both cases I have had to concede defeat ... for now. I have been variously ignored, ridiculed, and (in the case of ODP/DMOZ) comprehensively stomped on for my impertinence in insisting that those in management positions actually, you know, do something useful to help their organisations.

Unfortunately, when my wounds have healed, I will no doubt take up the battle again, because I simply cannot accept that people with so little respect or consideration for those "beneath" them are entitled to the benefits and privileges of their positions, without being called to account.

One closing comment: while it is heartening to receive a lot of private support from friends and colleagues who have similar concerns about mismanagement, it is somewhat disheartening that they are not prepared to speak up.

That hurts a bit, but it's completely understandable, of course, when they can see the consequences of doing so!

However, I hereby publicly salute two of those friends and colleagues who were bravely conscientious enough to make a stand.

Jim and Keith, you have long been heroes of mine for your aptitude, dedication, honesty and steadfastness.

In these opinions, if no others, I was absolutely correct.

ODP/DMOZ: Down the Rabbit-Hole (2)

In my last post I referred to the recent increase in unpleasant attention from some of the volunteer administrators who are supposed to lead the editorial community.

I also mentioned that I lived in daily expectation that they would eventually tire of my determination to reserve my genuine respect for those who actually earn it. I was right to fear the effects of their hurt feelings.

I have been very productive as a high level volunteer, and I have never used my position to abuse the directory in any way, so it is with great sadness (but little surprise) to find those high permissions have been peremptorily revoked. I am still an editor, because of course there is no justification for removing my editor account completely. I have broken no guidelines (except the unwritten ones about showing unquestioning "respect" for one's "superiors", whether they earn it or not), but it is a disappointing use of their power to exact such a harsh punishment on someone who has done nothing more than question the value of their positions.

As I wrote last time:

"... it is sad that dedicated volunteers receive almost no encouragement or support from directory management, who nevertheless feel they are entitled to be respected, solely as a result of their elevated position, even if their own contributions are negligible."

Their heavy-handed over-reaction is particularly ironic, because I have spent most of my editing time in the last couple of years identifying and investigating editors who are being dishonest, self-interested, and in other ways abusing the directory and undermining its integrity. In many cases the Admins have supported those editors and refused to close their accounts or reduce their permissions, so we now have the farcical situation where many abusive editors are free to damage the directory, whereas honest and productive ones are driven away.

A topsy-turvy "Wonderland" indeed.

ODP/DMOZ: Down the Rabbit-Hole

The title refers to the first chapter of "Alice in Wonderland", because for many people the Open Directory Project seems to be an illogical, upside-down world, full of confusing inconsistencies and bewildering rules.

Sometimes this is due to a simple misunderstanding of the nature of the directory itself, but unfortunately some of the difficulty is due to more fundamental problems.

The concept of DMOZ is very simple: an international community of volunteers finds and sorts worthwhile sites into an organised collection which is made freely available to everyone, so that web surfers can more easily find what they are looking for.

Unfortunately, that single paragraph mentions most of the problems.

1. "Community of volunteers"

I have written at length on the subject of attracting more people to help build the directory, and I have even provided a detailed guide to completing a successful application. My own contributions as a volunteer have continued to mount up since I recorded them here 2 years ago, and I take pride in having added almost 30,000 sites to the directory. As a meta editor, I've accepted over 340 new editors and restored the accounts of more than 1200 others who wished to return to editing after some time away.

Such contributions are by no means unique or even noteworthy, but it is sad that dedicated volunteers receive almost no encouragement or support from directory management, who nevertheless feel they are entitled to be respected, solely as a result of their elevated position, even if their own contributions are negligible.

Unfortunately, I am once again suffering the same relentlessly negative attention from "above" to which I have previously referred, but I will say no more about that, because I do not want to hear the famous cry of Alice in Wonderland's Red Queen!

2. "Finds"

Volunteer editors look for sites wherever they can, both on the internet and in the "real world". One place they may choose to look is the pool of websites suggested by other people, but this is seldom a fruitful source.

Hence the most commonly heard question about the directory: "I suggested my site to DMOZ/ODP ages ago, so why isn't it listed yet?".

3. "Worthwhile sites"

The criteria for inclusion are available for everyone to read, but that doesn't stop many webmasters from trying to get completely worthless sites into the directory. Dealing with the endless suggestions from spammers wastes the time of volunteers who could otherwise be building the directory with useful sites.

4. "Freely available"

There is never any charge for using the directory (despite idiotic "corruption" rumours).

AOL supplies the technology involved in keeping it running, but resources are naturally limited for something which makes no money, so any necessary repairs, maintenance or improvements happen very slowly indeed, if at all. For example, the AOL Server Crash of late 2006 took the directory entirely off-line for two months. Much of the lost data was never recovered, and many of the resulting bugs are still there three years later.

This is extremely frustrating for the volunteers who work on the directory, but there is nothing they can do except wait for the long-promised DMOZ 2.0.

5. "Web surfers"

Unfortunately many webmasters and marketing agents want to believe that DMOZ is a free listing service to assist with site promotion, but it isn't, and never has been. The directory exists simply to help internet users find information, answers, products, services, ideas, or anything else they wish.

If there is such a thing as an "average" web surfer, that's who the volunteer editors are working for. :-)

Selective Listening: A DMOZ case study

Why are those most in need of constructive advice the least likely to listen to it? [Rhetorical]

This phenomenon is not confined to DMOZ management, of course (although that is a great place to start). The same principle applies to any situation where someone's high opinion of themselves exceeds their capabilities.

The Open Directory Project has recently been granted the dubious benefit of a third group of volunteer administrators (NB that page is seriously outdated, by many years!), the first and second groups having mostly mysteriously disappeared.

Due to self-imposed (and self-protective) restrictions, I am unaware of the details of these new promotions, and of the reactions of the volunteer community, but I can guess. The appointments are likely to be as inexplicable and idiosyncratic as previously, with scant regard for the needs and concerns of those volunteers who do the actual work.

This is particularly unfortunate for those landed with the role, as they almost certainly believe they can effect the necessary changes.

Sadly, this is patently impossible, but we do wish them well.

Seriously.

It is needed.

Leadership, Loutism or Blatant Bullying?

Leadership: inspiring others in "the accomplishment of a common task"

Loutism: acting like a lout - "awkward, stupid, and boorish"

Bullying: being "habitually overbearing and intimidating"

It is a short step from loutism to bullying, because both groups have no respect at all for others, and a very high sense of their own importance. The lout acts in a selfish, non-personal way (like yelling obscenities or spraying graffiti), but I have a particular disdain for people who feel the need to boost their self-image through the repeated use of threats and intimidation against other individuals.

However, when such tactics are used by those already in positions of authority it is not only unacceptable but a complete misuse of their position, and brings the whole management/leadership process into disrepute.

• Surely the fact that they have "power" over others would be enough to satisfy their need to feel more important and influential? Why on earth would they need to threaten and belittle their subordinates?
• Their role is to manage, lead, direct, encourage, or otherwise exert their authority for the benefit of the organisation or community.
• If there is a need for discipline, they are expected to carry this out in a firm but respectful manner, and only in the interests of the community or organisation as a whole.
• Personal piques and prejudices are completely unacceptable reasons for unfair treatment of those "below" them.

Such behaviour is seen everywhere of course, with petty-minded, disturbed or ignorant people being ill-advisedly placed in positions of authority, where lack of supervision and monitoring allows them to indulge their greed for power over others. Prisons, detention centres, police forces, armies, schools, business corporations, nursing homes ... the scope for such people is depressingly wide.

All civilised people deplore such behaviour, of course, but most of us see it every day without doing anything about it. Sometimes a bullying culture is so ingrained that it is seen as normal, or perhaps even justified, as in the case of prisons, the army or even big business. It is much harder to excuse the situation in schools, hospitals, and other organisations where the primary goal is not punishment, discipline or profit.

In such situations we all have a responsibility to stand up to bullies and those who similarly misuse their authority. If someone stands alone they are likely to be harassed, ridiculed, or even dismissed from the organisation. Not an appealing prospect for even the bravest souls. But if everyone makes it clear that those in charge are expected to behave in a fair and respectful manner, without resorting to personal attacks, threats and intimidation, then there is a far better chance that message will get through.

Remember: bullies are simply insecure cowards who lack the talents and personality to succeed on their own, and therefore have to put others down in order to raise themselves up.

DMOZ 2.0 - Nirvana or Neverland?

As the Open Directory Project continues its stately pace into the Shiny! New! future, the volunteer editor community is receiving more frequent reminders of the wonders that await us. Well, only in the most general of terms, of course, but still, interesting times are apparently just ahead.

These changes (we cannot call them "improvements" as we don't know what they are) have been promised "soon" for the last 3 years, usually when volunteer editors have reported (and often re-reported) problems arising from the Great AOL Server Crash of 2006. As I commented last year, in the absence of any details, or in fact any noticeable staff activity at all, it has been impossible for editors to maintain the sense of keen anticipation that seemed to be expected of us.

However, it looks as if progress might be accelerating from its customary glacial speed. After several years with an increasingly absent management team, there seems to be a flutter of renewed activity at the top, which we all hope is a Good Thing. The involvement of volunteer administrators has fallen steadily ever since that management position was created, in spite of a subsequent boost in their numbers.

A year ago, when I lamented their continued disappearance, I drew the inevitable conclusion that the position must be one which de-motivates and un-inspires any individual who holds it. However, some volunteers apparently still hanker after membership of what a fellow editor irreverently calls "The Platinum Lounge", so here's hoping that any new appointees are able to make use of their increased permissions and authority to actually lead the volunteer community and inspire editors with renewed enthusiasm for the directory.

Otherwise, the so-long-promised DMOZ 2.0 will be nothing more than window-dressing on an empty house, or to use a more alarmist cliche ...

Viva Volunteers!

Have you noticed that people who don't volunteer for things are very quick to criticise those who do?

I suppose it's driven (at least partly) by guilt, but it seems incredibly shallow to complain about someone who is doing something you are not willing to do yourself!

Not only are many people depressingly quick to criticise the efforts of volunteers, but it seems that some of them can't even grasp the concept. These people refuse to accept that someone might choose to give their time, effort, expertise or whatever, without expecting anything in return.

According to these cynics, nobody in their right minds would do something for nothing, and even if they can't find any evidence of payment, they simply refuse to believe there is none, and frequently accuse the volunteer of accepting "secret" payment for their services.

Regular readers might guess that I talking about the deluded individuals who stridently accuse volunteer DMOZ editors of accepting bribes, without ever providing any evidence, and certainly that is a classic example of this misguided behaviour.

However, I recently came up against a similar attitude in my local community, where an offer to create a website for a local arts and crafts group was met with suspicion and distrust. Having done the same thing for several years (absolutely free of charge) for our community learning centre, I was astonished to be suspected of ulterior motives, but apparently the whole idea of volunteering is simply foreign to them.

To all such people I recommend this wonderful photo.

Hint: think "gift horse".

People Don't Read

Why don't people read (or listen to) things properly?

Is this a modern phenomenon? A consequence of the digital age? A reflection of our increasingly complicated lives?

Maybe it indicates a disturbing increase in self-absorption, with corresponding disinterest in the thoughts, views and opinions of others?

Case 1

I spent yesterday as a clinical examiner for 3rd year graduate medical students. These are people in their mid-late 20's or early 30's, all of them with previous University degrees, and with only one more year of study until they graduate as doctors. You might reasonably expect them to be intelligent, perceptive, and capable of paying attention.

The station for which I was an examiner gave the very simple instruction to "Select a case you have seen this year which illustrates ... ". There were three such questions, each relating to a different issue, and most students were able to describe suitable cases. However, to my great surprise, not just one but several of them ignored the question entirely and proceeded to talk in general terms about issues arising from their clinical experiences.

All of them knew this would be part of the exam, and they were allowed to bring their case reports with them, so it wasn't as if they couldn't remember any specific cases. It seems they simply didn't read the actual question, and instead gave the answer they wanted to.

Case 2

I have written many times, and at great length about the process of becoming a volunteer editor in the Open Directory Project, as have many other editors (such as my friend and colleague shadow575), and the application form itself contains very clear instructions. These are not at all complicated or hard to follow, and we have had successful applications from people of all ages and levels of education.

To prove my point, here are some of the instructions:

"A poorly written application ... that only serves to hype and promote websites is unlikely to be approved."

And yet we receive many applications every day which are full of careless mistakes, and/or read like advertisements for sites belonging to the applicant.

"You'll be asked to supply 3 sample URLs on your application. The sites you suggest should be specific to the subject matter of the category for which you are applying to edit."

So why do thousands of people apply with only one or two sample URLs, often completely unrelated to the category for which they apply? The form even goes on to explain in more detail:

"By providing a sample of 3 URLs (websites) in your application, you are showing us

• your understanding of the kinds of sites listed in the category
• your ability to pick quality websites, and
• your ability to provide good and useful descriptions."

I simply don't see what is so difficult.

But then I didn't understand why a highly educated person could fail to understand the instruction to "select a case ..."

I think the situation in both cases is the same: the instructions are ignored in favour of what they want to do - a reflection of the "Me" society I guess.

In other words, these people are saying

"I don't really care what you think. I am more interested in what I think, and I will demonstrate this by ignoring your request."

A very selfish attitude in most situations, but downright short-sighted and self-defeating when it comes to exams and applications.

DMOZ/ODP needs YOU!

I recently read yet another long-winded complaint from an ill-informed webmaster about the "lazy" editors in the Open Directory Project, so I decided it must be time to revive the issue of volunteering. If these persistent critics were willing to give to the Project even a tiny fraction of the time they spend complaining, we would see the directory grow by thousands more sites every week!

After all, it's really very easy to become an ODP editor.

We've had volunteers ranging in age from 12 to 80, from all over the world, of all educational levels, and even some with disabilities like blindness.
There are no time requirements other than at least one edit every 4 months (although many editors do a lot more than that), so even if you can spare only a couple of minutes every month, that is still a worthwhile contribution, and certainly way more productive than all those people who keep on and on and on about what somebody else should be doing on their behalf.

All it takes to apply is half an hour or so of your time to read the application instructions, find sites for the category where you want to edit, and complete the form carefully and honestly. Then wait for a volunteer meta-editor to review your application (usually in less than a week), and Ta Dah! you are a DMOZ editor.

How easy is that?

Unfortunately, the vast majority of new editor applications are completely unacceptable, and having personally reviewed over 12,000 of them, I still don't understand why. It's not as if the form is at all complicated (see my comment above about the range of people who have had no trouble with it), but in any case there are numerous guides and hints for those who do need assistance with applying - including the comprehensive FAQ that I provided here last year.

As with many aspects of DMOZ, there are a lot of misconceptions about the application and approval process, despite all the many explanations that have been provided by my colleagues and myself over the years. So once again, here are the most common reasons for rejection (based on the many thousands in my own personal experience):

1. Not bothering to read the instructions (which therefore contributes to the following).
2. Not completing the form honestly.
3. Not understanding the category.
4. Suggesting sites on the form which are already listed in the category.
5. Suggesting only their own site(s).

Note that this list does not even mention the titles and descriptions provided by the applicant, despite the fact that these are often cited by misinformed people as the "main" reasons for unsuccessful applications.

Certainly it is sensible for an applicant to show that they have at least read the editing guidelines, because if they are accepted they will be expected to follow them. But it takes weeks to months of editing before these guidelines become second nature, so it is obviously unrealistic to expect an applicant to demonstrate familiarity.

There are frequent calls for more people to be accepted as DMOZ editors, so why are all these careless or dishonest applications a problem?

Firstly, the integrity of the ODP depends entirely on the honesty of its editors, so applicants must show they are willing to abide by the Conflict of Interest policies. A dishonest application is a very poor start.

Secondly, a person is unlikely to be able to contribute much to the directory if they cannot manage to find even 2-3 worthwhile sites that belong in the category they want to edit, but which are not yet listed there, and which don't all belong to them.

Thirdly, careless applications are a waste of everyone's time. Many hundreds of applications are received each week, and every single one is reviewed by one or more volunteer meta-editors or catmods, taking up to 30 minutes each, and every applicant then receives feedback, so the time involved is considerable, even when it does not lead to another editor joining the Project.

Let me finish with a reminder to all those whose applications were unsuccessful: the feedback you received was intended to help you complete a more careful and/or honest application, and many current editors were accepted only after doing just that.

Please consider re-applying - it's a fascinating hobby, and DMOZ (and the internet community) needs YOU!