2013 Balance Sheet

Credits

• Having my oldest friend assure me (apropos of nothing) that she believes in me. 
• Having another friend still be here, when a year ago it seemed that another Easter would be impossible, let alone another Christmas.
• Seeing another medical student mentoree graduate as a doctor with a very bright future.
• Watching former medical students progress in their careers with confidence and aptitude.
• Having 3 new dogs come into my life, even though one lasted only six weeks (RIP dear Wynny - see below). 
• Finding out what it's like to take on rescued dogs - a lot to learn on both sides, but immensely rewarding.
• Discovering the joys of training a receptive and very entertaining puppy (daughter of my Mukela RIP - see below).
• Finding the perfect new home for "Lurlene", my treasured 1957 Holden car.
• Receiving heartfelt and treasured support from unexpected quarters during a time of great personal distress.
• Having a UK artist ask to use a photo of my rescued racer Rosie for her portfolio/gallery of oil paintings. And who could blame her - what a picture of serenity:

Debits

• Losing yet another friend (after the two last year), but in this case her death was what she wanted. RIP Julie - forever "DJ" in my thoughts.
• Losing two more dogs (after Thika's death in 2012). My dear old boy Mukela died a month or so after his daughter came to join us, and my first foster greyhound Wynny died just 6 weeks into a normal life after her racing career, as a result of the drugs given to keep her winning. Pictures of those precious six weeks and her unforgivable end can be seen on her site: Drughound Racing. This banner was kindly made by an overseas Greyhound Rescue site:
  
• Missing out on the chance to teach medical students - one of my most favourite jobs ever.
• Being knocked off my feet for months by a completely unexpected personal attack which destroyed my self-confidence and sense of worth in an activity I had loved for more than 20 years.
• Finding out (like countless other naive people before me) that some people will always prefer rumours to truth, even at the expense of friendship and loyalty.
• Discovering that getting through a truly awful year does not mean there'll be a better one ahead. My hopes for 2014 are therefore very conservative: 
  

Dog Obedience 3

This is the third in a series of articles written for the Malaysian Kennel Association, who asked for some comments on the principles of dog obedience training from a judge's perspective. Most of each article is directed at people who are simply interested in having a better behaved dog, but I hope there may also be something to interest the experienced handler and competitor.

"Why won't my dog heel properly?"

There is an old joke which goes "I called my dog Herpes because he never heels". Yes I know that's pretty corny, but teaching your dog to walk nicely on the lead seems to be something a great many owners have trouble with.
I don't know what the Dog Laws are like in Malaysia, but they are very strict in Australia, and there are depressingly few places where dogs are allowed to run freely. So most people have to walk their dogs on a lead, and everywhere you look there are owners being dragged along, even by very small dogs.
Not only must it be very tiring for the owner to walk like that, and uncomfortable for the dog, but it also means there is almost no control over what their dog does at the other end of the lead. It might suddenly lunge at another dog, or try to snatch a child's carelessly waved ice-cream or hamburger, or step suddenly onto the road, or walk right in front of a cyclist, or wrap the lead around a light pole, or someone else's legs, pram, or walking stick.

All of these possibilities detract greatly from the enjoyment of going out with your dog, and it is for this reason that it is so important to teach your dog the basics of heeling.
It is not the place of this article to tell you how to do that - there are many ways of doing so, and your local dog obedience club is probably the best place to start. Failing that, there are instructional videos on the internet, and countless books on the subject.


Walking "nicely" on the lead
There is a difference between this and the sort of "heeling" expected in Obedience activities. I think it is unrealistic to expect a dog to be working and concentrating every time you go out for a walk together, so even while you are training your dog, it is important to allow time for him to look around, sniff things, and walk along casually. This is something that all dog owners can achieve with just a little time and practice.
The key principle here is that the lead should be loose, even if the dog is walking a little ahead or behind or out to one side.
Consider it from the dog's viewpoint: A dog straining ahead on a tight lead cannot move any faster than one on a loose lead, so there is no advantage to the dog at all, and he can enjoy his outing even more when he is not continually being jerked here and there by an owner using the lead as a brake.
From the owner's point of view, his arm and hand do not get tired or sore, and he can relax, without constantly having to watch what his dog is doing way ahead at the end of the lead. He knows that his dog is walking close to him, and that any change in speed or direction will be noticed by the dog without the owner having to haul on the lead.
And for other people walking nearby (with or without dogs), there is the peace of mind that comes from seeing a dog properly under control, walking calmly along on a loose lead. A very reassuring sight, because they realise that the owner has put some effort into training the dog to behave well, and they are far less likely to have their own progress interrupted by a wayward dog.


Formal heel-work
By this I mean having the dog walking in the position considered optimal in Obedience work: with his shoulder about level with your left leg, close but not touching it, matching his pace to yours, and remaining in this position through turns in all directions. Needless to say, if he is on a lead, this must be completely loose and not used to keep the dog in that position or to "steer" him around corners!
Obviously, this requires considerably more training than the casual walking described above, and as I mentioned, it is impractical to require this sort of behaviour every time you go for a walk together. But well-trained dogs should be able to adopt this walking position whenever their owner chooses, such as when passing other people or dogs. It is also a primary component of Obedience work, as well as many other dog sports such as Heeling to Music, Jumping, and Agility.
Again, the best place for you and your dog to learn this skill is at a reputable Obedience Club, using positive training methods. The "old" method of constantly correcting the dog by sharp jerks on the lead, or through the use of "training collars", has been conclusively shown to be far less effective than positive methods like "clicker" or reward-based training. These methods teach the dog to enjoy doing the right thing, instead of fearing doing the wrong thing - a very important distinction which leads to a much better relationship between owner and dog.

So I encourage all dog owners to spend time teaching their dogs to at least walk nicely on the lead, even if you don't go on to do any more Obedience training. That simple skill (as well as the automatic sit covered in the previous article) will make walking together a pleasure for you both, and it will avoid detracting from the enjoyment of others. Happy Dog-walking!

Dog Obedience 2

As I explained in my last post (goodness, that was too long ago!), I've been asked by the Malaysian Kennel Association to write a series of these articles, and I'm making the most of the pencil-chewing they involve by posting them here too. They are aimed at people who are interested in understanding some of the principles of basic dog obedience training, and are absolutely not a substitute for practical assistance. Experienced handlers and competitors will find nothing new here, although each article will include some final comments from a Judge's perspective.

Why the "Automatic Sit" Matters

Many people wonder why Obedience Training seems to place so much importance on the dog and handler learning how to have the dog sit automatically (i.e. without any signal or command) when the handler stops.

It is one of the exercises which determines when a dog and handler are ready to progress to the next level of training, and it is a skill which is required in even the most basic Obedience Trial.

So what's the big deal?

Well, for a start, it is an excellent indication of how much the dog is paying attention to the handler. If a dog is more interested in nearby sights or smells, it is unlikely that he/she will notice when the handler slows down and stops. So the automatic sit is proof that the dog is primarily focussed on his owner.

Secondly, there are obvious safety implications, even for those owners who have no intention of entering Obedience Trials.

When walking along with your dog beside you, you might stop for a number of reasons:

• coming to a busy road
• meeting a friend
• noticing a problem up ahead
• pausing to decide which way to go
• wanting to look at something
• stopping on a narrow path to let someone else go past

In all these cases it is far more convenient if your dog quietly sits without your having to say anything, until you are ready to move on. It leaves you free to concentrate on whatever made you stop, and it reassures other people that your dog is under control and not a pest.

So there are many practical reasons for this exercise.

But it also indicates the strength or weakness of the bond between dog and handler, and this is the basis for all obedience work, whether for competition or not.

Many years ago, when I was just starting out in Obedience, I had a dog who always placed her paw on my foot whenever I stopped. I thought this was a charming display of affection until an Obedience instructor suggested that she might be doing this so she could look around, smell the breeze and generally ignore me until she noticed when I moved on!!

Those of you who do take part in Obedience Trials may be interested in what judges look for in terms of the Automatic Sit. It is a part of many exercises, but does not have any specific marks attached to it, so it is up to each judge how much importance they place on it. Obviously the dog must "sit when the handler stops, without any command or signal", as it says in the rule books, but there are many different ways this can be done, and judges differ in how much they care about the variations.

1. Some dogs take longer to sit than others, and this can be due to all sorts of things. If the judge feels the dog is slow because he is not paying attention, or because he is waiting for a second command, then sometimes this means a deduction of points. However, most judges realise that bigger dogs, older dogs, dogs with tails, dogs with large testicles, pregnant bitches etc may all have a very good reason for being a bit slower, and it is unlikely that any points would be lost. Oh and by the way, remember that all judges used to be competitors, so don't think we won't notice that little movement or whispered command to make your dog sit. ;-)
2. Handlers often worry about exactly where the dog sits, and they are not satisfied unless the dog is sitting precisely in line with their left leg, facing straight ahead, and often actually touching their leg. Again, this is a matter of personal preference, and some judges will deduct points for "untidy" sits, where the dog is sitting a little forwards or behind, or is facing slightly to one side, or is sitting a little apart from the handler. Other judges will not mind such minor imperfections, unless they are trying to differentiate between two almost faultless performances.
3. And what if your dog doesn't sit automatically while you are in the ring? Well, you and the judge could stand there in anxious silence for minutes unless one of you says something, so it may as well be you! If your dog hasn't sat within about 10 seconds, it probably isn't going to, so you may as well give it a command (NEVER a correction). Sure, you might lose a few points, but if your dog doesn't do any automatic sits, you are very likely to fail the whole exercise, so at least you have reminded the dog what to do, and hopefully it will do it properly for the rest of the round.

So in general, I would recommend all dog owners to work on the automatic sit because it is so handy in everyday life.

And for those of you who participate in Obedience Trials, it would be a tough judge who took more than a couple of points off for poor sits, so don't fuss too much about getting a "perfect" sit unless you think that the rest of your performance will be perfect as well!

Dog Obedience 1

For those who don't know (ie almost everyone who might read this!), I am a licensed Dog Obedience judge, and I was recently honoured to be invited to judge a large Obedience Trial in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It was a very interesting weekend in all sorts of ways, and I am still very grateful for the opportunity, so when I was subsequently asked to write a regular column for the Malaysian Kennel Association magazine, I naturally agreed.
Besides, what an irresistible combination of three of my greatest interests: writing, dogs, and giving my opinion on things!

So I might as well use the articles as occasional blog posts, getting maximum value from the minimal effort I expend. ;-) Here's my first contribution, aimed at those who are uncertain about whether or not to try Dog Obedience, and/or who know little about it.

Dog Obedience Training 1 - Mythbusting!

1. You have to start with a puppy. - MYTH BUSTED!

Many people have successfully trained dogs which came to them in the dog's later life, perhaps from a shelter or another family member. Just like people, dogs are never too old to learn!

2. You need a Working or Utility breed to train in Obedience. MYTH BUSTED!

Border Collie and Jack Russell Terrier successfully performing "Down Stay with Handler out of Sight"
at the top level of Obedience (in Malaysia).

Again, just as with people, some dogs find learning easy, others need patience and a different approach. The breed or mixture of breeds is immaterial - it is the individual dog which matters, and with the right sort of training, every dog can learn. 

3. There's no point in doing Obedience if you don't want to enter competitions. MYTH BUSTED!

Obedience training simply means working with your dog to learn new skills. That might be as simple as teaching your dog not to jump up when people visit, or to walk calmly beside you on the lead and to sit down when you stop. These exercises form part of basic training, and make your dog more of a pleasure to be around. If you are interested, however, you and your dog can go on learning more and more. It's all up to you.

4. You have to train your dog regularly if you want to succeed. MYTH CONFIRMED!

Training methods vary, but most trainers agree that if you want your dog to learn something and then remember what it has learned, you will need to practice. But that might be as infrequently as once a week, or as often as twice a day - it is all up to you and the result you want to achieve.

5. You don't need a professional trainer or a club to learn Obedience. MYTH CONFIRMED!

It is certainly possible to teach your dog basic Obedience without any assistance, but there are many advantages to joining a club. You will get the benefit of other people's experiences, you will learn some alternative methods of training if you are having difficulty, and you and your dog will enjoy the company of others with similar interests. 

6. Obedience Clubs are all very competitive. MYTH BUSTED!

Most clubs have a wide range of members and interests, from those who just want a well-behaved family pet, to those who are keen to reach the highest standards in the sport. Good clubs will welcome everyone with an interest in training their dog, no matter what the reason. 

7. Anyone can be a Dog Obedience Trainer. MYTH PLAUSIBLE.

It is true that no special qualifications are required in order to call yourself a "Trainer", but that does not mean that anyone can be a good or helpful trainer. If you are looking for someone to help you train your dog, it is wise to do a little homework before investing your time and money. That's why it is often better to join a Dog Obedience Club so you can get to know a bit more about what makes a good trainer. You could also ask the Kennel Association for some recommendations, if you want to get a private trainer.

8. Some training methods are cruel. MYTH CONFIRMED!

Unfortunately there are still trainers who believe in using harsh corrections and punishment as a way of training a dog, but these days most trainers use what is known as "positive reinforcement", which means rewarding the dog for doing the right thing instead of punishing it for doing the wrong thing. This method is much kinder to the dog and gets much better results.

9. Some dogs are impossible to train. MYTH BUSTED!

There is no single method of training which suits every dog, and good trainers will know how to adjust their methods to allow for a particular dog or handler's personality and past experiences. Some dogs are more difficult to train than others, perhaps due to a stubborn nature, or a disability, or because of some past trauma, but a good trainer will be able to help the owner overcome these, even if it takes a bit longer.

10. You can't do Obedience Training with a Show Dog (or vice versa). MYTH(S) BUSTED!

Obedience Training is all about teaching your dog (and you) to work together as a team in whatever activity you choose to do. That includes going for a walk or run, taking your dog to visit friends, doing retrieving with a ball or dumbbell, jumping over obstacles, entering obedience trials … or conformation shows. Many dogs have both Conformation and Obedience titles, and it doesn't matter at all which you do first, or if you enjoy both activities at the same time. The main thing is for you and your dog to enjoy working together!

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.

'Tis the Season To Be ...

Forgiving towards those who cause us distress, pain, and hardship. Let's assume that they did so through ignorance, inattention, or misunderstanding, rather than from malice, greed or envy.

Generous towards those whose lives would be improved by some small effort on our part. Give unwanted presents and other items to a charity, sell them and donate the money, share your good fortune by regular contributions throughout the year, or become a volunteer for a worthwhile cause.

Understanding of the foibles, fears, hang-ups and other "issues" that affect everyone, and which sometimes result in actions and reactions which are inexplicable or inappropriate.

Gracious towards those whose talents, skills, fortunes or relationships seem better than ours.
Resolute in the face of misfortune, injustice, and other calamities not of our making. Not being responsible for causing a situation doesn't mean we can't be responsible for fixing it.

Honest about our mistakes and errors of judgement. Trying to cover it up or, worse, shifting the blame to someone else is often tempting, but always makes the situation worse in the end, and adds to our own burden of guilt.

Patient with those who seem to be "wasting" our time. Rather than getting irritated and frustrated, let's assume that they are trying their best, or that they have other things on their minds.

Optimistic that the above virtues can be sustained just a little longer than they were last year. Perhaps even into the second week of January?

Realistic about success in this and all other endeavours. All we can do is our best with what we have.

Above all, let us be kind to ourselves and others, regardless of achievements, and certainly despite a lack of them.

Happy New Year everyone.

Forebears and Bugbears

Ancestors
Having grown up knowing almost nothing about my extended family, due to the disinterest of my parents in their relatives, it has been a great surprise for me to suddenly develop a passion for genealogy. Unfortunately I have left my investigation rather late, because most people from even my parents' generation have died, but thanks to the intrusive internet it is possible to unearth the sorts of facts previously found only in family stories or possibly the Family Bible.
Disappointingly, I have not yet discovered anyone particularly newsworthy or infamous among the 750 or so leaves of the family tree I have so far identified, but the exercise has given me several points to ponder:

• The general expectation of a young woman in the 19th century must have been that she would bear 10 or more children, usually at intervals of a year or two. 
• She would expect several of her children to die at birth or in infancy, and that she herself would probably die before she was middle-aged, most likely from infection, often as a result of pregnancy or childbirth.
• Young men would expect to leave home in their mid-teens and then to spend almost all of their time working, often away from home. They usually married young, and began almost immediately to produce as large a family as possible.
• It was very common for one parent to die while some of the children were still very young, and the remaining parent usually married again, often starting another family.
• Any parent who managed to survive into old age always went to live with one of their children, usually an unmarried one.
• Hardly anyone got divorced (although there is no reason to suppose that marriages were generally any happier or unhappier then than they are now).
• Young orphans were far more common than today, leading to more formal or informal adoptions.
• Families sailing from the UK to Australia not infrequently lost or gained a child during the voyage.

None of these are fresh or insightful observations, but the point is that these people were my family. They are not characters in a novel or part of a sociological treatise on "19th Century Life in the Colonies". My own (extremely unusual) middle name pops up at least once in each generation, tying me firmly to these women whose lives were unimaginably different from my own.

So one question is foremost in my mind as I unravel these histories ... "Could I have coped with lives like theirs?" Of course that is impossible to answer and therefore pointless to ask, but nevertheless I feel ashamed to say that I doubt it very much indeed.

Incensors

(as in "things which incense me", not "things for waving incense about")

I am implacable about fairness, and this frequently gets me into trouble. My friends charitably call this behaviour "standing up for what is right" or "speaking out against injustice and deceit".

Just as accurately, my critics label me as a "troublemaker", 

or to use a more vivid expression, a "shit-stirrer".

Keeping out of trouble, avoiding confrontation, minding my own business, not fighting other peoples' battles for them, letting things be, remembering my (inferior) position, sticking to battles I can win ... these are lessons I seem to be unable to learn.

Most people very sensibly prefer a quiet life, and try to avoid situations which will cause them distress. Of course that doesn't mean that they are any less fervent about injustice than people like me - they just have a more self-protective way of dealing with it. And if someone else seems not just willing but actually eager to go into battle on their behalf, why not let them?

I have previously described two of my futile battles this year, but no sooner had those wounds healed than I was hurling myself pointlessly back into the fray. The same two "Goliaths" continued to raise my ire throughout the year by persisting in their shabby treatment of students and volunteers respectively, so after a very short period of meekly acknowledging those in "authority", I resumed my doomed campaign on behalf of those they treated with such disrespect. 

Of course the natural reaction of anyone to a persistently annoying pest is to swat it, which is precisely what happened (again).  

Will I ever learn not to keep trying? 

Probably not.

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.