salon is running a piece on people that have been fired or had bad experiences from keeping online journals. undoubtably, as blogs and online diaries become more ubiquitous, so will the negative aspects of making your thoughts public.
well, i’m back from out-of-town and getting back into the blogging swing of things. while i was gone, it appears that salon ran an article on google and it’s use of the open directory.
“As Harik explains it, the decision to go with Open Directory — just one player in a space that includes Yahoo, LookSmart and Excite, among others — had two main drivers. One was the licensing — it’s pretty hard to argue with “free,” whether you’re talking software, beer or content. The ODP’s evolving editorial
culture was also a plus, said Harik. “We like the way submissions are made to the Open Directory, and we think it has the potential to be more accurate and more timely than other directories. The people who contribute to it care about what they’re doing.” The truly decisive point, though, was the Open Directory’s potential to scale in parallel to the Web’s hypercharged expansion.”
this is pretty standard praise of the open directory, which i tend to agree with. [disclaimer: i also am biased towards liking the open directory, since they were prompt in accepting a section of snowdeal.org.] however, not everyone agrees that the open directory is so open. not too long ago, traffick ran an article on why the directory may not be so open after all:
“Lack of representativeness and lack of transparency. Unlike the federal bureaucracy in a democratic nation, you don’t precisely know what the criteria for acceptance are. Criteria for progress through the ranks is similarly unknown. The Open Directory’s procedures for accepting new editors or accepting site submissions are no more open or transparent than they are at private companies like Yahoo or Looksmart.
Incentive for corruption and excessive categorization of low-quality sites.Yahoo and Looksmart (presumably “closed shops”) have employees performing similar functions to the Open Directory Category Editors. Think about this. Looking at it from the point of view of organizational sociology (yes, I must), the underlying reality is that these three are all organizations with rules and structures whose main output is the opinionated categorization, and importantly, rejection, of a vast number of submissions of web sites and Internet content. The key difference seems to be that dmoz category editors aren’t paid. What is the likely result of this? Think about the analogy of a country whose bureaucrats are poorly compensated. Any textbook can give you examples. All moralizing aside, extremely low pay creates an
incentive for the postal inspector or the traffic cop to engage in petty forms of corruption. What’s my city health inspector’s incentive to REALLY crack down on all the bug-infested restaurants downtown? And what might motivate a dmoz category editor to prevent their buddies’ lower quality sites from getting one or even several listings? And are they likely to think about the whole mess all fits together, or is that someone else’s problem? In fact, there are considerable incentives in volunteer directories to pump up one’s numbers of site submissions, since that is the key criterion for advancement through the ranks. The web’s best resources, therefore, are impossible to find, buried under a mountain of minutiae.The “open” directory is owned by a $300 billion company. Most importantly — and I hate to bring this to the attention of the self-governing republic of dmoz — the relatively benevolent overseer of its operations, Netscape, was acquired by AOL, which recently merged with Time Warner, creating a $300 billion behemoth. To repeat: the Open Directory Project is owned by AOL Time Warner. The “project” now has marketing executives assigned to it, though you won’t see that openly admitted on the “About us” page. AOL Time Warner: a bastion of openness? Quite the opposite. AOL loves to be proprietary. It dislikes the “open” Internet, but just now it probably wants as much PR as it can get which juxtaposes the word “open” with “AOL.” This could help a lot in smoothing things by the regulators. Fair enough. But when that’s all done with, AOL, how about some truth in advertising?”
it’s really sad when an article from friday seems old and stale. one of the unintended consequences of mainting the snowdeal.org family of sites, is that it’s making me “hypervigilant” of when stories come online – with anything over 12 hourse being past its prime. anyway, the article is yet another ‘mainstream’ reference to The Cluetrain Manifesto, ‘blogging’ and the changes that are afoot – using the amazon patent ‘situation’ as context:
“The traditional media sources — The Wall Street Journals and the BusinessWeeks of the world
— have opined on Amazon’s recent patents. Online magazines such as Salon have run their
pieces. Web sites such as stopamazon.com have been started. But the heart and soul of the
movement to criticize Amazon’s patents is the Weblog.The Weblog is the raw voice of the people — your customers. Essentially, a Weblog is an
online diary with hyperlinks. It’s a point of view and a collection of links to anything on the Web.
It’s a remarkably potent means of communication. A Weblog is a lens to view the world through
someone else’s eyes. ”
to beat a dead cliche in the mouth – i resemble that comment!
just what i need – yet another way to waste time that is thinly disguised as constructive behavior.
someday, i’ll actually see being john malkovich. i’ve read good things about it, but for some reason, i don’t get out to see movies very often. for good or ill – my attention span doesn’t really seem to accomodate most of the fluff that hollywood dishes out. anyway, the new york times magazine is running a bit on charlie kaufman – who is the author of being john malkovich and it seems like he has some interesting projects in the works. unfortunately, from the sounds of it, he is being given more than enough rope to hang himself with.
due to a freakish set of of factors, i believe my brain actually lives quit a bit farther in the past than the average 80 milliseconds.