[rob1] Perhaps Gary would like to see his friends, former Senator Robert Torricelli or former Governor James McGreevey (the most corrupt officials that the State of New Jersey has seen in recent years) in charge of the new government Dept. of WHATIS.

[art2] Who are your friends rob? ...or would you prefer I just pick any old corrupt Republican to guilt by nonexistent association you with. As to who should run the department I never suggested be created-- maybe the guy who's running the do-not-call list would be a good candidate --haven't heard of any corruption there. The Library of Congress seems to be working ok maybe that guy would be a good candidate.

[net3] Once again, vague and ambiguous plans. Ideas as ambitious as your WHATIS proposal need clear, detailed plans before they can be sold to anyone of import. And contrary to what you have repeatedly asserted, your idea does not sell itself. No idea does.

[art4] Once again... also... in your own words: "the merits of implementing a WhatIs system are self-evident". In a world where we could afford $800 million to take some pictures of some dull stupid rocks on Mars the idea of spending a couple of million dollars to create a benign database that would function in parallel compatibility with all current elements of Internet infrastructure and "probably" produced the benefit of substantially reducing the amount of Spam-wasted time on the Internet --doesn't in my opinion qualify as a "ambitious".... it is as you stated self-evident wisdom and a common sense no-brainer. As for your typical "No" exaggeration... I think the first invention that sold itself was the round wheel. I am basically selling the idea of using the miraculous "straight" line (between production and consumption) on the Internet.

[art2] This big scary corrupt government crap is an incredibly immature argument--...

[rob5] Turnabout is fair play Art. "This big, scary corrupt business crap is an incredibly immature argument."

[art6] But the difference is you have a ignorant one-way-only, closed zealot mind.

[GAM7] Funny, that's the exact image I have of YOU.

[arT8] Here's a quick rundown of some of what I've said here on the subject:

""" I think fanatic unregulated capitalism is the most logically vacant and socially destructive of all the earth's religions. Capitalism is no Holy Grail, it's only value is in the incentives it creates, but those incentives can be manufactured other ways, ways that view the long-term, and the future as far more important than short-term gains.

Just as the golden rule is the real beef of Christianity (don't need anything else including the 10 Commandments) ...The self improvement/interest incentives is the beef of capitalism-- stuff like "tax-free inheritance for the spawn of billionaires" is socially unproductive, anti-capitalist dogma of the corrupt religious hierarchy. """

I don't supported the taxation of business nor will you find evidence of me supporting any draconian regulation, I do support the creation of nonprofit "generic" providers in applicable industries to create a basic standard for the capitalized industry to compete against. My problem with capitalism is the unnecessary "fat". My argument is simply that the prospect of achieving excessive personal wealth is all the incentive required-- Permitting "Preposterously Excessive" personal wealth corrodes the social fabric and creates absolutely no productivity benefit. Likewise permitting preposterously excessive inheritance creates nothing but a anti-capitalistic socially parasitic cash green-blood monarchy. The spawn of the wealthy waste expensive educations on golf courses depriving our society of the productivity that could've been produced by someone who actually intended to use that education. Worse they squander the blood and sweat that every dollar is made of on silly selfish extravagance that is nothing short of pissing on the graves of the hard-working and early dying men and women who built the Great Economy they so recklessly bleed.

[art6] I have no objection to incentive economics or rationally regulated capitalism... it's not complex economic theory to understand that certain elements of social structure or infrastructure can be more efficiently provided or must be provided through a single coordinated monopoly provider... competing privatized highways for example would make absolutely no freaking sense at all. Similarly in other industries, to quote the Google jerks, "there should be a noncommercial competitive alternative" Capitalism has no magic superpower that renders it immune to the need for rational moderation.

[GAM7] ROFLMAO! A bald faced lie on your part. You repeatedly condemn ALL business activity as bad and corrupt. The communists who influenced your early life brainwashed you well, indeed.

[arT8] Well I was obliged to read the Bible in my youth and Jesus the Communist sure did talk a lot of socialism. (He used to talk a lot about how a rich man's odds of getting into heaven were as bad as the odds of coaxing a camel through the eye of a needle-- and used to talk about how the birds don't have Porsche's) The accusation of brainwashing is just cheap rhetoric. I think I've demonstrated in this long debate that I am willing to defend the rationale behind every statement I make and you won't find empty platitudes and simplistic dogma-- the telltale sign of brainwashing-- at the roots of my philosophy. Bottom-line: I don't hate business or capitalism, I hate inefficiency.

[art2] keeping the argument Internet related why don't you explain how it is "government" corruption that is responsible for a 50¢ domain registration costing anywhere from $8 to $25. Or why don't you just name any government program that doesn't subcontract to "capitalist contractors" that is ripe with corruption.

[rob5] As I recall, when the US GOVERNMENT originally set up domain registrations some 15 years ago, the annual SET PRICE for domains was $50 per year. Since then an international non-governmental organization (ICANN) has taken over domain registrations and the prices have come down. The "standard" retail price is $35 per year, although many places offer domains at substantial discounts.

[art6] Your version of history is too simplistic, and too void of context, to have any meaning. The bottom line fact you have avoided is that A "domain registration" has an actual cost/value of maybe even less then 50¢ and your very crooked (certainly in this case) "capitalism" has converted that into a "standard" tax of $34.50 a year which produces no value/service to the customer... but the "charming prospect" of having 95 cents of their dollar squandered on CEO salaries and marketing industry eyesores.

[GAM7] The fact is, ICANN is a non-commercial entity.

[arT8] Established to do absolutely nothing but turn a simple database into a preposterous capitalized reselling racket.

[GAM7] And since you seem to be a miserable failure at everything you do, I don't see how you can offer any honest opinion as to what the "value" of a domain registration is or how much it costs.

[arT8] A domain registration probably doesn't involve any more "work" than a credit-card transaction-- it is a sad, but telling, irony that at the core of a technology that promises so much efficiency we have imposed something as preposterously inefficient as the domain registration system.... and like a cliche dogmatic fanatic you defend it.

[net9] You can still get domain name registration absolutely free in the *.us domain, and I still have some of my content there. However, for the vast majority of my content, I prefer to pay directNIC $15.00 per year for my *.com, *.net, and *.org domains. (See < http://www.directnic.com/?6533 >.) That way, I know my domain name registrations will be handled properly and my content will be more visible to my intended audiences.

This is not unlike the contrast between ODP and Yahoo! Originally, ODP was formed *AS A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE* to exploit volunteer labor and provide webmasters with an opportunity to get their Web site promptly indexed. ODP gave Yahoo! a run for its money, but then ODP ran into intractable problems of scalability and quality control, and webmasters who want to get their Web site indexed promptly are now well advised to ignore ODP and submit their site to Yahoo! Express. Holding on to their "ideals," ODP's oligarchical collective continues to provide substandard service rather than simply accepting the fact that they have been soundly beaten at their own game.

[art10] "Scalability and quality control" is not the real, nor would it be an intractable, problem....

[net11] Oh, yes it is. I say this as someone who spent a great deal more time as an ODP insider than you did. To wit, I watched ODP grow from a relatively obscure directory to a highly influential oligarchical collective, and then decline into the now obscure cult that it is. Early on, I became keenly aware of the fact that there was a problem with good faith disagreements among recognized experts in re ontology as well as what constituted good editing practices, and the most common attempt at quality control that I observed was the "solution" that was imposed upon outspoken newcomers such as yourself -- i.e., the removal of ODP editing privileges.

[art10] The real problem is simply the oversight of allowing mob/gang rule. A hood of liars and cheaters that hide behind censorship and secrecy has no "ideals" except serving their own interest. The ODP could be easily reclamated by simply abolishing the corrupt power structure. And moving to a more open system of quality control that provides the accountability of public scrutiny (not unlike a wiki encyclopedia you have an affection for) I also suggested that changing the editor function from one of including sites to one of exclusively removing sites (to a wastebasket and can be publicly inspected-- and includes brief description of cause and the identification information of the person who made the original submission)

[net11] Actually, Wikipedia is suffering from the very same intractable problems of scalability and quality control that ODP once suffered. Wikipedia is handling them better than ODP, thanks to the leadership of Jimbo Wales, but the problems are definitely there, particularly when it comes to quality control and good faith disagreements among recognized experts in re content, and no amount of good faith seems to be able to vanquish these problems.

[net9] There's a parallel here between ODP's oligarchical collective and arrtworks army of one in that they both exhibit recalcitrant denial in the face of overwhelming evidence tending to disprove their hypotheses. ...

[art10] We will see who ends up on the final ash heap of history-- those who embraced wholesale deception and chicanery-- or those who embrace honest transparent social interaction.

[net9] To wit, money makes the world go round, and free market capitalism is, for the most part, a self-regulating system where consumers can vote with their dollars for the products and services they value.

[art10] It by nature regulates itself to the worst (socially permitted) level of exploitation. The self regulator has no regard for the rights and dignity of the individual. and no regard for the long term or social interest... and Is willing to exploit any and all incidental advantages of circumstance to monopolize power and control (Microsoft being the perfect example)

[net11] Yet another truly incoherent and irrelevant rambling thought, making it impossible to refute. But thanks for sharing.

[net9] Notwithstanding the obvious merits of free market capitalism, there is a school of thought that buys into the myth that government regulation is necessary to rein in greed...

[art10] A "myth" celebrated on bastille day with the traditional bowling with the in-effigy aristo head.

[net9]. Of course, this school of thought ignores the fact that government agencies are easily influenced or captured by the very people they purport to regulate.

[art10] A problem easily fixed by establishing a death penalty for political corruption.... I mean let's call it what it is-- Treason.

[net9] Here's a thought: If the price of domain name registration is so inflated, why doesn't someone like arttworks open his own domain name registration service and use the profits to set up a WHATIS database? ...

[art10] If I could meet the permit requirements I would do exactly that. I find it a disturbing indication of a culture void of consumer interest balance that a well-financed foundation hasn't already done so.

[net11] Oh yeah, the old "if only" excuse:
"If only I could meet the permit requirements. . ."
"If only I had a couple of million dollars . . ."
"If only I could get my message out to a larger audience. . . ."
"If only I had the courage to look in the mirror and remove the beam from my own eye, perhaps I could figure out what I am doing wrong and what I should be doing differently to achieve my goals instead of blaming other people for my own shortcomings."

[net9] Well, that would be too simple.

[art10] Easy as -shoving- pie through the I of a needle.

[net9] Instead, arttworks hopes to be a leader of men (and women) and show them how important it is to set up a WHATIS database and (consequently) get "the government" to pay all the bills.

[art10] In the first place I don't want this thankless shove-it job, and have solicited other more qualified candidates to take the position I'm more than willing to vacate. Unfortunately this is the Dark Ages for idealism and I am apparently the only thinking man still standing after the Green--greed--Plague.

[net9] As if this grandiose plan of enlightening the "general public" and persuading them to lobby congress for change were not vague and ambiguous enough, arttworks goes on to describe in the most impractical terms how his proposal would be implemented and by whom. To wit, "Domain owners would be held responsible (by those who would be reformatting or adding value to the raw index) for the quality (honesty) of the information provided and would be allowed to re-edit this information as required." (< http://donotgo.com/whatis.htm >.) ...

[art10] let's add just a little more fair context: "I offer this crude blueprint of what I think needs to be done to create a better, more efficient system with the hopeful expectation that the attention of better minds will improve and refine it, and that the hysterical rhetoric of the lesser minded chaos parasites who wish to retain control of internet navigation will be rejected."

[net11] If you want something done right, do it yourself.

[art10] "This more detailed reformulation of my "whatis" proposal is still a work in progress and should be judged with that in mind (I will make additions as time permits). It also should be considered that this is an unpaid, part-time effort, formed from just one persons imagination. In wondering for a moment, what great things could be accomplished by devoting more substantial intellectual, and financial resources to internet infrastructure we should all feel some social and cultural embarrassment."...

[net11] It's rare that I see someone damn themselves with faint praise. Once again, the vast array of "if only" excuses only work if your objective is to pretend to escape responsibility by pointing the finger of blame at someone or something other than yourself.

[art10] "The current system has built into it some profoundly negative and destructive incentives. In effect, instead of paying people to pull "weeds" out of "the internet garden" the current system is paying people to sneak weeds in (SEO, paid inclusion, etc.) "

"A better system would encourage (financially reward) all good internet citizens to de-spam the superhighway. By putting a bounty on the head of spam and its basic ingredient deception we can clear the road of litter and actually see the information superhighway that has been hidden under all the scheming clutter. "

"Using E-Bay as an example of a system that provides some working checks-and-balances regarding abuse. I would contend that a similarly simple yet effective system can be developed to protect the "whatis" database. "

[net9] Who would do the necessary reformatting? ...

[art10] You are getting into really pointless minutia... but the answer is, as the words those "adding value" implies-- google, yahoo, MSN or any other directory or search engine that believes it can provide a better version of the raw information.

[net9] How would they be compensated?

[art10] Through the capitalized business model of their choice...

[net9] And, as set forth above, why can't all of this be done on a small scale by arttworks right now using MySQL on a PC?

[art10] I've answered that question many times and you have repeatedly evaded providing a response. see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2339

[net9] As the owner of the XODP Yahoo! eGroup, I have encountered quite a few good ideas for how the Internet should be indexed, and I think that expanding the WHOIS database to include WHATIS data fields is one of the good ones. However, the more airtime I give arttworks in re implementation of his proposal, the stupider and more impractical the idea sounds....

[art10] I suppose you should be at least grateful that I'm not skilled at making bad ideas sound intelligent and practical.

[net9] To wit, "Too[sic] reduce the number of paid staff required to enforce the honesty guidelines regarding keywords and description . . . a three (or so) level system [should] be established that allow[s] (registered) web citizens to earn a percentage of the bounty money collected from system abusers." (< http://donotgo.com/whatis.htm >.)

[art10] Breaking these sentence fragments out of context is up to your usual cheap standard of rhetoric.

[net9] So, were back to the profit motive. To wit, the very people whom arttworks has defined as his arch enemies (i.e., the members of various indexing communities like ODP) are to be deputized as quality control sheriffs.

[art10] That is really not what I've suggested. I've suggested that all Internet users should be allowed to conveniently report when they witness someone littering upon, defacing, or vandalizing the superhighway. As I don't think in idiotic extremes and absolutes like your kind -- I would expect that some "honest members" of indexing communities would certainly make use of a system that allowed them to make accountable accusations of fraud in the public interest -- and make a little money doing it.

[net11] Expectation is the fundamental cause of disappointment, particularly so when your expectations are unreasonable ones borne of wishful thinking. To wit, I've had quite a bit of experience managing people, and my experience has been that most people have their own agendas. And when a group of people being managed grows to a membership of five, people form factions and alliances, and the leader of the group has to defer to the group's wishes if he or she wishes to remain the leader of the group. The other alternative is the extreme wherein a charismatic leader manipulates the members of a group to serve his or her will. Neither of these scenarios bodes well for your would-be mercenary militia, which would no doubt have a mind of its own and a collective will of its own, and would no doubt sell their services to the highest bidder.

[art12] Once again our argument has crashed into the unyielding wall of your fanatic libertarianism....

[net13] Having seen my fair share of fanatic libertarians, I know for a fact that I am not one of them. Indeed, by virtue of the fact that I take into account the harm that I would incur from actually standing toe-to-toe with "The Man," on most issues my libertarian leanings tend to fall into the rather cowardly realm of abstract advocacy. To wit, I have seen many people go to jail in protest rather than pay their income taxes as any rational person would do. Moreover, because I benefit from paying income taxes -- i.e., with roads and various other government-owned monopolies -- my preferred solution to the problem of government taxation and spending is a budget ballot, a solution that would give all registered voters a meaningful opportunity to state where they actually wanted their per capita share of tax revenue to go. In time, I think many wasteful government programs would die through lack of funding if a budget ballot were introduced.

[art12] In your universe sweatshops don't exist, and any man can fly to the moon if he is just willing to tie enough tin cans together....

[net13] Actually, sweatshops do exist in my universe, and they are the direct result of government-sponsored protectionism that prevents hard working people from immigrating to developed countries like the United states from Third World countries. I am all for keeping dangerous criminals out of the United States, but I have never understood why anyone thinks that being born in the United States entitles them to exclude others from enjoying the benefits of living and working here. As to whether "any man can fly to the moon if he is just willing to tie enough tin cans together," I think we both know that this is pointless hyperbole. One of life's greatest tragedies is that 98 percent of the people who earnestly try to achieve worthwhile goals fail to achieve those goals. This sad state of affairs can drive you insane if you let it. Alternatively, you can accept the facts that you are basically powerless before the forces of nature and society, that you will continue to grow older until you die, and that whatever progress you may make in working towards your goals before you die will almost certainly be corrupted by someone else after you die. Furthermore, you can either use these existential truths as an excuse for not trying at all, or you can face the truth without panic and work with whatever tools you have at hand in trying to beat the reaper.

[art12] I can't and won't argue with complete nonsense.

[net13] I wholeheartedly disagree. Indeed, complete nonsense, pointless hyperbole, and gratuitous insults are your preferred tactics. As I stated previously, on most discussion boards you are usually the author of your own exile. Here, and elsewhere where I have given you an opportunity to speak without being censored, you periodically give up, pretend to claim victory, and storm off in a huff. And not that you are ever missed, but you always seem to come back.

[art12] You are in practical fact a "flat earth" style imbecile appropriately qualified as a crazy zealot.-- unfortunately there is a lot of that going around... especially in them red states. So once again we have reached the impasse--

[net13] It is you who has reached an impasse. To wit, having failed to incite me to ban you from this discussion group, you now storm off (once again) pretending to claim some sort of moral victory. And you're not fooling anyone but yourself, if that.

[art12] As you have proven yourself capable of self contradiction and duplicity and it is unlikely I will be fooled again into seeing hope for resolution of our "intractable" disagreement, or any purpose in sparring (practicing) with someone who can't fight by the rules of intelligent discourse. Maybe every boxer/advocate should practice with a guy who's just trying to bite their ear off-- as apparently that maybe what they will be obligated to face as a qualified opponent... but this Homie don't play that. I respect intelligence, and the art of argument, and I won't waste it on people who will insult it, by trying to steal a cheap victory, with cheap tactics.

[net13] If Jerry Springer were to offer this excuse for abandoning a discussion, he would have more credibility than you would. You are one of the Internet's most reliable trolls, and you love to goon it up as much as the next troll. I, too, enjoy the occasional flame war, but eventually I stop feeding the trolls and try to steer them towards a more meaningful discussion. Even the dull and ignorant have their story, and I want to hear it.

[art12] By a ratio of more than 10 to 1 you have left my arguments unanswered and have excluded portions of quotes to pervert context....

[net13] No doubt I leave many of your arguments unanswered. That's because most of your arguments strike me as extremely ignorant, uninformed, and incoherent. In those instances where your embryonic thoughts rise to the level of valid arguments, I will occasionally rebut them, but (unlike you) I have nothing to prove and no need to prove it. Moreover, as I have stated previously, I am under no obligation to save anyone from his or her ignorance, and I have no desire to do so.

[art12] Out of desperation, or sheer lazy and insulting disregard, your last few posts have done nothing but provide preposterous evasion's by pointing to fantasy pies in nonexistence skies-- or by using the old "your fly is undone" ploy. Enduring this nonsense, has about as much purpose, as arguing with a Jehovah's witness-- as the depth of their mindless stupidity is already proof of their immunity to logic. Similarly, you have been rendered immune to logic and facts by a preposterous faith in a narrow dogma of silly absolutes. The sad fact is your substantial intelligence has been corrupted, disabled, and destroyed by a dogma you apparently need to justify fulfilling your perceived obligations to elitist traditions. Although I don't feel any responsibility to fix that--I would like to-- but it really isn't in the cards of realistic possibility. So it's back home I go, hi ho.. hi ho.

[net13] It's like I'm looking in a mirror, the difference being that most of the Jehovah's Witnesses that I encounter are polite, well-dressed, and ready to acknowledge that I am more or less well-informed when it comes to the Bible and Christianity, given that I have a cousin who teaches biblical Greek and Hebrew at a seminary on the East Coast. In fact, I usually enjoy challenging Jehovah's Witnesses with the simple question, "Why does God let good people suffer?" (See < http://blog.netesq.com/2004/11/why-does-god-let-good-people-suffer.html >.) I then direct them to one of the many deeply thoughtful theodicies that I have read. (See, e.g., _Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job_ < http://www.bookofjob.org/ >.) Now go, Gary! And sin no more!

[net3] Yet another red herring. What does the cost of domain registration have to do with your WHATIS proposal?

[art4] After all the preposterous sidetrack examples you have provided- - you have the unmitigated gall to complain when I use an example that involves the forces controlling the very whois database my whatis proposal is named after. What a laughably desperate evasion of the simple truth that the "Internet domain name System" is a revealing (perfect) example of the gross inefficiency achieved when you "capitalize" the building and maintenance of basic infrastructure.

[rob1] Gary the Troll always extolls the virtues of Government- controlled entities and belittles the business world as being corrupt. Apparently the Troll thinks that government officials are not capable of corruption.

[art2] Your accusations would only be "apparent" to the ignorant or the dishonest. I have not suggested "government control" I have suggested government financing--not unlike the financing provided for libraries and museums.

[net3] Many people would argue that government financing is synonymous with government control. I am one of them. Moreover, I do not see how government financing would make the implementation of your WHATIS proposal any more practical or desirable.

[art4] We have been over this ground before and you declined to provide an answer to my rebuttal points. First off, "Many people" are idiots and...As I stated government financing would provide two important things:

A) substantial media coverage and public awareness and the competitive incentive to participate... or be left out.
B) A sustainable source of maintenance revenue with "relatively fewer" strings attached.

By contrast private funding through a foundation (if such funding could be secured) would guarantee no media coverage, and would likely result in insufficient participation(without some sort of government regulation "encouraging" content providers to participate) for the database to serve its intended purpose which is to be so authoritative and complete no search engine could refuse to incorporate it into its algorithm and competitively survive. Venture-capital would come with obvious strings of required profit generation and for the same reasons such a model could not, as a practical fact, be used to fund "public libraries" it is not a viable option.

[art2] I've also been quite explicit in suggesting that all Internet databases that "control" Internet access should be wide open to public review.... which Dumboz and Google are not.

[net3] Notwithstanding their shortcomings, both ODP and Google are clear examples of what private enterprise can achieve with the profit motive as its guiding principle.

[art4] Let's not forget the the blueprint for google was drawn up in a federally (socially) subsidized university and the explicitly stated objective was to create a "non commercial" competitive alternative.

[net3] Both ODP and its "exploit volunteer labor and co-brand your data" business model are moribund, having been driven to extinction by LookSmart's revenue sharing business model and Yahoo!'s "give us some money and well promptly do what 66,205 non-existent volunteers cannot do in six months" business model, and Google is now facing some stiff competition from Yahoo! and MSN. Such competition -- in the private sector, sans government financing -- has been the driving force behind innovation on the Internet...,

[art4] What innovation? Spam? the signal to noise problem isn't getting better it is in fact getting worse. The average website is cluttered by more advertising than in any time in the Internets history. We are following a blueprint the gave us infomercials on pay- cable, and 500 channels of generic common denominator junk.

[net3] and there is no reason to believe that any good can come from forcing any private company to open its Internet database for public review.

[art4] I never suggested "forcing" any such thing-- what I implied is a publicly owned database could quite reasonably be made publicly open and publicly accountable and therefore preferable.

[net3] Rather, if you want to go out and find private financing to implement your WHATIS proposal, and subsequently open that database to public review, that is your prerogative.

[art4] After five years and a million words exchanged between us, this silly reduction of the argument earns you no credibility.

[rob1] His pot-smoking visions must the cause of his failure to grasp reality.

[art2] I suppose it's just plain simple redneck lizard stupidity that renders you incapable of seeing billions of dollars wasted on wheel spinning marketing as a tax on all Internet content that, like all Spam, just ultimately diminishes efficiency and retards progress.

[net1] About 2 1/2 months ago, I posted an exposition that asked and answered the question of whether there is any comprehensive scheme currently in place for indexing content that is published on publicly accessible Web pages. The answer was and is no, but - as I pointed out in my original narrative - that answer raises the question of how to reduce the noise to signal ratio when researching a topic on the Internet. For all intents and purposes, this post can and should be interpreted as a followup to my previous post, which at some 1,000 words or so, was probably taxing the attention span of most XODPers. In both instances, my intention was and is to spark critical discussion about how the Internet should be indexed, which is the stated purpose of this Yahoo! eGroup.

A post of some 1,000 words should be more than enough to stimulate discussion on a mailing list. Even so, I realize that, for a wide variety of reasons, many people are reluctant to chime in and have their voices heard here at XODP, with the recent notable exception of Gary Mosher (aka arttworks). It is this type of reluctance that has left the important task of indexing the Internet to a relatively small number of people who wield enormous influence over what content actually gets indexed.

[art2]

[art] "reluctance" seems to me a strange choice of "word". I think your 171 insiders are willfully ignoring the overall subject of "indexing the internet" -- as I think the vast majority are only interested in marketing strategies relevant to their particular interests. Which, in my opinion, also explains why "directory projects" are so hostile to suggested improvements to the established submission/inclusion mechanism. The simple truth is "volunteer directory projects" were not, and are not, maned by strictly unpaid "volunteers"-- the objective isn't "indexing the Internet" the objective is securing power. In other words, the majority of your membership isn't trying to correct "the enormous influence ...of a small number of people"-- they're just trying to be one of the small number of people.

[net1] All too often I hear stories about how hard it is to get indexed by Yahoo!, ODP, Google, etc., etc., etc., when the plain simple truth is that there is nothing stopping anyone from publishing their own set of annotated link lists.

[art2] First this isn't a comprehensive solution... and second, they are publishing such link lists --I think the vernacular is "link farm". In my suggested solution, I have stressed the importance of credibility/accountability... and from the very beginning have argued that solution must be comprehensive, universal, and centrally located.

[net1] And with the advent of the blogosphere, there is virtually no barrier to entry for would-be pundits who wish to speak up and be heard. Simply put, if you have a message that deserves to be heard, speak up and you will be heard. ...

[art2]

[art] heard by who? anyone who matters? anyone who cares? anyone who doesn't have a [paid] content producers bias? We already have on the table what is basically a "sliced-bread obvious" enhancement and the extent of this group's helpful contribution is ridicule, and the suggestion that the speaker-upper go door-to-door slicing everybody's bread while the group sits back in recliners and talks about other ideas they can support, as long as no one tries to implement them in any real world practical manner.

[net1] That was one of my motivations for founding XODP, and it remains one of my primary reasons for keeping the group active as a publicly archived mailing list.

With some 171 subscribing members and some 45 bouncing members, it seems that there are still a significant number of people who have an interest in the viability of XODP as a discussion group. Indeed, approximately two new subscribing members join XODP each month, and a larger number of would-be subscribers simply lurk, so I am not yet willing to convert XODP to a blog format. The move to a blog format is long overdue in terms of increasing XODP's visibility , but the move is not yet absolutely necessary. If and when that time comes, I will move forward with my original plans to archive the present collection of XODP posts on one of the XODP domains that I own and refer all inquiries regarding the XODP eGroup to the as-yet-to be implemented XODP blog. In practical terms, the only thing that will change is the URL.

Since its inception in the Spring of 2000, the XODP eGroup has evolved from a place where ODP malcontents and expatriates could regroup and consort, to a free speech forum for the discussion of progressive ideas about how the Internet should be indexed. ...

[art2] To be clear, and resolve this debate once and for all, you mean only "progressive ideas" that can be implemented for the entire Internet from one's home PC through a dial up connection...right? If you can't build the progressive idea by yourself-- don't bring it up here-- and if you can build it yourself you don't need to bring it up here. Congratulations a perfect Catch-22.

[net1] Early on, the idea was to start an open content directory that improved upon the ODP model. (See < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2 >.) This was proposed by George Ruban (aka XODP Meta Editor GRuban), at that time still a current ODP Meta Editor, and it helped give XODP a certain legitimacy that had eluded most groups that were critical of ODP. (E.g., < http://donotgo.com/ >.) ...

[art2] When was I a group? and legitimacy defined how, by what demographic?

[net1] Tim Maroney (aka XODP Editor timmaroney), one of the more eloquent XODPers, also joined XODP and posted some collected comments that he had originally posted on the now defunct Search Engine Discussion Web site. (< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/13 >.) Yet another important early contributor was Maxim Lifantsev (aka XODP Editor beetle), a computer scientist at State University New York who narrated his own expulsion from ODP for soliciting discussion in the ODP Editor Forums regarding his work on the Open GRiD. (See < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/49 >.) There were many other valued contributors who joined XODP early on who had little or no connection whatsoever to the current incarnation of ODP, such as Mar Orlygsson whose membership I solicited because of his involvement with the now deader than dead Free Directory Project. (See < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/41 >.) All told, XODP acquired a total of 41 subscribing members in its first month of existence, and many other members who came to the eGroup, looked around and left, as they were either current ODP cheerleaders looking for XODP's dirty laundry or (more frequently) disenfranchised XODP editors using the eGroup as a vehicle for figuring out what to do with themselves after being unceremoniously discharged from ODP. Shortly thereafter, most of the active discussion on XODP moved to the now defunct Other Directory Project discussion board sponsored by Traffick.com, and I more or less moved on to paying work as a consultant for Wherewithal, Project Napa, and various other business opportunities that XODP had created for me.

By virtue of my limited time and resources, I have allowed the XODP eGroup to take its own path, more or less, and posts have ranged from ongoing complaints and queries from XODP editors who had been unceremoniously discharged, to complaints about the late and not-so-great Wherewithal's recalcitrant defiance of ODP's demands for attribution, and to posts from insiders at Zeal (< http://www.zeal.com/ >), the Open Database Project (< http://www.ecriteria.net/Open/ >), Wikipedia (< http://www.wikipedia.org/ >), Gimpsy (< http://www.gimpsy.com/ >), and Site Library (< http://www.sitelibrary.net/ >). My personal predilection is that XODP contain more posts concerning progressive ideas for indexing the Internet, such as the Open GRiD, Zeal, the Open Database Project, Wikipedia, Gimpsy, and Site Library, but all who wish to have a voice are welcome to speak up and be heard.

[art2] And what has XOPD discussion accomplished for any of these projects. More importantly how does having hundreds of small-scale directory projects, of inconsistent quality and coverage, reduce the signal to noise problem? Incidental to this topic, I have recently observed that Wikipedia and other directory reference pages are filtering into the top 10 on many google query's... while in some circumstances this might be helpful, I think in most it just adds more --self, and over promotion-- noise to google results ( there is also the too common occurrence where the directory or encyclopedia page is basically just a regurgitation of googles page ranked results disguised as researched, or authoritative links) I think there's little doubt that google can distinguish between regular end-destination content sites and directories/link- encyclopedias and I think google should make some effort to separate or group these sites in the results.

Most directories are in fact little more than content promotion gimmicks (designed as such, or eventually exploited as such) and really don't have much to do with indexing or organizing the Internet. You obviously disagree, and you apparently believe that there is some point in discussing these various projects. I know from personal experience that none are willing to discuss modifications to policies or procedures --so I personally can't see much point in wasting good ideas or words on deaf ears...but as you are apt to say -- I have no responsibility, or pressing desire, to separate you from your ignorant delusions ...and wish you the best of luck.