Dmoz running adsense...

[NFFC]

Can anyone think of a reason why they shouldn't?

Maybe if they did and AOL ring-fenced the income they could afford to develop the directory to its true potential?

Thoughts?

[Nick W]

I think you might find that the 'free' culture over their overrides the sense in that suggestion.

Personally, i'd love to see adsense on it. Would be pretty useful in most cats...

Nick

[NFFC]

>Would be pretty useful in most cats...

Partly what I was thinking, when its working well adsense adds to the content of a site. In the case of Dmoz it could be a way of adding some up to date information.

[seobook]

In the case of Dmoz it could be a way of adding some up to date information.

a hint of slander in every polite suggestion...

I think that whole free best biggest thing gets in the way of really making it the best. that and randomly kicking out people and not accepting many people who would likely do a good job.

imagine if they allowed paid express submission reviews for $20 for one month or $50 for one week and split that with the editors. and split adsense revenues with the editors.

[NFFC]

I really don't think paying editors or allowing paid submissions would jive with their aims.

"The Definitive Catalog of the Web" is a simple and worthy aim.

Maybe they need some staff to help focus that aim, staff cost money. The alternative is a slow desent into a "lord of the flies" situation.

[I was going to write "...a continuing slow descent further into a "lord of the flies" hierarchy." but decided against it]

[Nick W]

a hint of slander in every polite suggestion

and more than a hint of bitterness in your post my friend ;)

Beleive me, the amount of editors/ex-editors that feel agrreived by the dmoz decision making crew gets bigger day by day....

What can be done? - Well, they just initialized a new 'super duper job title' the 'ODP Administrators'. Just a new way of giving recognition to metas or is there somthing really useful in that?

Nick

[kctipton]

The ODP social contract implies that there won't be a selling of data -- but ads on a dmoz.org page is a grey area IMHO. It is highly unlikely to happen all the same.

randomly kicking out people and not accepting many people who would likely do a good job

the amount of editors/ex-editors that feel agrreived by the dmoz decision making crew gets bigger day by day

I regularly participate in the kicking out of people, and it's not random. As for aggrieved (ex-)editors, what would you know of that? Are you one? An ominous gang of surly ex-volunteer editors loitering around looking to do ... what? ... is more urban myth than reality.

I regularly reject applications of people who _might_ do a good job, but they go for the cookie jar right away and give the impression that they're too self-interested to even come close to understanding ODP's mission and participating in a philanthropic way. "Better safe than sorry" is a position taken by many reviewers, including me.

[seobook]

I regularly participate in the kicking out of people, and it's not random.
if the reason is not disclosed then people can only speculate

As for aggrieved (ex-)editors, what would you know of that? Are you one? An ominous gang of surly ex-volunteer editors loitering around looking to do ... what? ... is more urban myth than reality.
<edited out incorrect line :( >
http://www.traffick.com/story/06-2000-xodp.asp

[NFFC]

>I regularly reject applications of people who _might_ do a good job

Sometimes I just despair.

Let me cut to the chase. ODP needs income, they need that income so that they can employ staff that can help the volunteers meet their stated goal of being "The Definitive Catalog of the Web". I think adsense would be a good way of helping reach that goal.

The alternative is to leave the responsilbity in the hands of individuals who believe great organisations are built by people whose mantra is "Better safe than sorry".

[kctipton]

Well NFFC, you keep track of quality and integrity issues here at SEW, and I'll work on that over at ODP.

An open door policy, like that at Wikipedia, invites problems. Someone started an ODP-type directory (violating the attribution requirements in the process) with Wikipedia-type editing powers, and it was made a joke in short order. Poke around and see for yourself: trulyopendirectory.com

I don't deny that there are unhappy ex-editors, but they're ex- for a reason.

As for that really old Traffick article, I bet you can't find a dozen articles like it, and certainly no current ones, say, from the last 24 months, which would still be old in ODP time. (ODP is only 6-ish years old, and I've been editing for all of 5.)

[andrewgoodman]

I really don't think paying editors or allowing paid submissions would jive with their aims.

"The Definitive Catalog of the Web" is a simple and worthy aim.

Maybe they need some staff to help focus that aim, staff cost money. The alternative is a slow desent into a "lord of the flies" situation.

[I was going to write "...a continuing slow descent further into a "lord of the flies" hierarchy." but decided against it]
I claim dibs on this analogy!! I presume you were alluding to:
http://www.traffick.com/story.asp?StoryID=51

[randfish]

I've been an editor for years and have always been dissappointed with DMOZ. I hope that they simply fade away and are taken over by large paid submission directories. It's funny to me that despite DMOZ's use, they are not nearly as comprehensive or useful as the Yahoo directory and I'm guessing that directories like BlueFind and SevenSeek will also dwarf our size and relevance in the years to come.

Like it or not, the Internet is commercial. DMOZ is just living in the past, and I suppose I'm living with them until I finally get too sick of it and resign from my categories.

What's so sad is the power trip that metas and editors have. Have you ever read through the resource-zone posts. It's very sad to see how roughly and rudely people are treated. If a paid service ever treated people the way DMOZ does, they'd be out of business in no time, replaced by a better model.

Maybe someday, we can have a commercial directory that's run right by people who care about quality listings because they're paid to. Now that would be a model to get teary-eyed about.

[andrewgoodman]

Well NFFC, you keep track of quality and integrity issues here at SEW, and I'll work on that over at ODP.

An open door policy, like that at Wikipedia, invites problems. Someone started an ODP-type directory (violating the attribution requirements in the process) with Wikipedia-type editing powers, and it was made a joke in short order. Poke around and see for yourself: trulyopendirectory.com

I don't deny that there are unhappy ex-editors, but they're ex- for a reason.

As for that really old Traffick article, I bet you can't find a dozen articles like it, and certainly no current ones, say, from the last 24 months, which would still be old in ODP time. (ODP is only 6-ish years old, and I've been editing for all of 5.)
I imagine that no one bothers to criticize ODP anymore because the critics, me included, have moved on. The ODP has ceased to be relevant in my eyes. Unfortunately there is precious little to take its place.

On the other hand, as online life evolves, there are many less ambitious, non-definitive "filters" out there. Every time someone blogs about something, every time a restaurant review is posted somewhere (ChefMoz isn't the only place you can get these, eh?), someone is offering their "take" or validation on some product, service, concept, or website.

In terms of categorization, no one at Early Yahoo or ODP was a categorization expert, and few editors today can lay claim to this either. So what's unique about these people's skill sets?

Covertly perhaps, portals like Yahoo are recreating the directory in a whole different way than we envisioned.

It will be interesting to watch what happens. But to most of us, ODP editors have no more standing as authorities than the average person who logs on to rate their local dry cleaner (http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000014.html).

I mean think about it. We can all lay claim to being enthusiasts. ODP editors are enthusiasts. I commend the enthusiasm. But so is every person who has posted their opinion on the latest Titleist titanium driver on epinions.com, or a movie review on a movie review site, or a blog about Britney's hair color. Few post impressive resumes (or even real names) or do this as a full-time job. Again, same thing with ODP.

As I said, it'll be interesting to watch. But few care anymore about ODP. Most people on this forum are well aware that the primary reason many became interested in ODP was because it's a damn fine link to have to your site, and free. Today, marketers are willing to pay for inclusion and are impatient with ODP's inconsistent policies and procedures, but ODP has resisted this long so may continue to do so for reasons known only to those who remain there.

Maybe because to become professional would be to admit once and for all that it's time to get out of the sandbox.

Alternatively, it might be time to disband the whole thing and let the individual editors' pronouncements sink or swim on their own merits at their own blogs and hangouts.

Without Google propping it up, where would dmoz be today?

[kctipton]

Without Google propping it up, where would dmoz be today?

Google is propping nothing up. Never has, probably never will (I guess I can't say it'll never ever happen).

Without Google, DMOZ would still be around, still growing, and probably not spammed as much.

[seobook]

Google is propping nothing up. Never has, probably never will (I guess I can't say it'll never ever happen).
why does the google mirror of the open directory project show about double the backlinks of what the original odp version does (in Yahoo! and Google both)?

[cuzco]

I've been an editor for years and have always been dissappointed with DMOZ. I hope that they simply fade away and are taken over by large paid submission directories. It's funny to me that despite DMOZ's use, they are not nearly as comprehensive or useful as the Yahoo directory and I'm guessing that directories like BlueFind and SevenSeek will also dwarf our size and relevance in the years to come.


Other directories may get as big, one day, but will they be as good?

Many other directories simply accept every site willing to pay them which i feel devalues them. If they ever reach the volume of submissions the ODP receives, and stick to that policy they will become a gigantic mess.

ODP gets so much stick as its the biggest and best(though not flawless), if any of these other directories reach the same size then we will see just as many disgruntled webmasters, only they’ll be demanding a refund for the money the paid to have their site reviewed.

There have been ex-editors, webmasters, and spammers predicting the demise of DMOZ for years, but the fact there is section of these forums for the ODP would suggest its not going to be anytime soon.

[Nick W]

Just to set matters straight, im not an ex-editor

I happily edit my modest cats once or twice a month at the least and enjoy doing it.

I do however agree with NFFC and others on the moeny/org issues raised.

How do I know about surly ex-editors kcpiton? - Well, if you hang out at webmaster forums a lot, and you read the always amusing dmoz threads, you pick up a vibe from individuals and groups alike...

Nick

[creativecraig]

What's so sad is the power trip that metas and editors have. Have you ever read through the resource-zone posts. It's very sad to see how roughly and rudely people are treated. If a paid service ever treated people the way DMOZ does, they'd be out of business in no time, replaced by a better model.


I have to agree that the editors at resource-zone and other notable forums are rude and arrogant, they do seem to be a dislike bunch.


I imagine that no one bothers to criticize ODP anymore because the critics, me included, have moved on. The ODP has ceased to be relevant in my eyes. Unfortunately there is precious little to take its place.


While the importance of Dmoz has dropped off its taking the rest of the web to catch on to this. As long as they Dmoz is around it will always be a heated discussion.

What would happen if Google dropped Dmoz completely? I know what Dmoz would say "we will survive etc etc..."

[Quadrille]

The ODP has ceased to be relevant in my eyes. Unfortunately there is precious little to take its place.A sad statement to read from a moderator.

But you provide your own answer; ODP ain't perfect, but there is none better (and none even close). And it is no coincidence that a large proprotion of the small band of knockers are either failed abusers of ODP, or defrocked editors.

This small band make a lot of noise - and they are perfectly entitled to do so - but I often get the feeling that the record's stuck ... the record's stuck ... the record's stuck ... the record's stuck ... :rolleyes:

ODP ain't perfect (there! I've said it twice!), and not all the editors are perfect (No, I'm serious!). But you can't have it both ways. You can't accuse ODP of having bent and bribable editors, then complain when those editors are found and made Ex-Editors. It simply doesn't add up. Keep reporting abuse, and then try to Be Happy when those complaints bring results.

Works for me! :D

When someone comes up with a better directory, then - and only then - will ODP fade away. And what's the betting the new 'Top Cat' will receive much the same abuse, from much the same people?

[Nick W]

A sad statement to read from a moderator.

Sorry, i dont follow that?

Nick

[Quadrille]

ODp forms the basis of the Google directory and many others; most of the 'up and coming' directories start out with the ODP dump, then open to submissions. ODP is the biggest directory (by far). A listing in ODP virtually guarantees a listing in Google (SE as well as directory), and ensures the site will be spidered by all major engines. And there's more ...

Liking, disliking or hating the ODP is entirely a matter of choice; for a moderator in a Search Engine focussed forum to dismiss it as 'not relevant' is simply mistaken, and a little sad. That's all.

[Nick W]

Then I see your point. But I dont agree with it ;-)

thanks...

Nick

[creativecraig]

Quadrille, I agree with what you are saying but there are many people that still regard the ODP as the holy grail and stress about getting there sites included. Then flood threads like this one with there tales of woe.

[Nick W]

If you need dmoz to get in the search engines, you need to either hire a professional or do a hell of a lot of reading ;)

Nick

[creativecraig]

Exactly my point, there are many uneducated people out there that still hold the Open directory project as the be all and end all of link building.

[Nick W]

Good! ;-)

Nick

[Quadrille]

ODP certainly isn't the only way to get ahead, but it can be a useful kickstart; if you read the whinges, some are justified, and their problems need sorting out - on another forum, just a few hours ago, a little investigation got a site its rightful listing and displaced another that really shouldn't have got in at all. These things happen, and can be sorted.

But it's a sad fact of SEO life that the majority of complaints arise out of submissions that have ignored the guidelines - and the guidelines really are pretty comprehensive. People (rightly) complain about the Long Wait, but the same people (often) have submitted a site with a wrong title, a mess of keywords in place of a description, and all this to (totally and utterly) the wrong category. Sorting out submission errors necessarily slows the process for everyone - but I don't think I'm surprising anyone here!

If you need dmoz to get in the search engines, you need to either hire a professional or do a hell of a lot of reading

I'd always advise people to do their own directory submissions; and all you need to read is the guidelines. That's how 95%+ of submissions get in. No magic, no bribery, no problems, no fuss.

Even if people read just one sentence - "Find The Appropriate Category", most would get in, and get in much quicker.

Even if you believed 100% of the whinges, they arise out of a tiny proportion of ODP submissions; most site submissions are from people who don't know anything about the SEO culture of knocking ODP; they don't know, they don't care. And most get listed. :eek:

I think I've droned on long enough .... :)

[cornwall]

Don't you just love Dmoz threads - this one is par for the course :(

Somehow they all go the say way...entertaining in a bland sort of way, but really go nowhere. Took perhaps about 3 posts to get everyone into the slit trenches with their entrenched positions. By the time I got to the end of this one, I had forgotten what the original point was, so back to that original point...

..perhaps the only real reply to NFFC's question on Dmoz running AdSense was from kctipton

but ads on a dmoz.org page is a grey area IMHO. It is highly unlikely to happen all the same.

Quite a sad reflection really on the state of Dmoz. I am unclear from his reply as to whether, if such a change is possible, then it is unlikely to happen because
a) There are no decision making systems within Dmoz that could make such a decision. In other words Dmoz is rudderless, and like the big ship just ploughing on in the direction it is going, without any means of altering its dierection.
b) There is a management system empowered to make such decisions, but they are generally against such a move
c) Some other reason

[kctipton]

I believe that management could decide to put ads on the pages, but I think they wouldn't do that mainly because http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html says that ODP data is free to use if attribution is properly given, and the implication is that ODP is not going to try to make money in any way off of the directory (i.e., if it won't sell the data, it won't take ads either). ODP data users may put ads on the pages, and they do.

[seobook]

I believe that management could decide to put ads on the pages, but I think they wouldn't do that mainly because http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html says that ODP data is free to use if attribution is properly given, and the implication is that ODP is not going to try to make money in any way off of the directory (i.e., if it won't sell the data, it won't take ads either). ODP data users may put ads on the pages, and they do.

what if they ran the ads to pay for some of the associated costs and then gave most the money away to a charity...certainly there has to be some charity in the world that is better matching to a social contract than letting the idea / system fade away and decay and losing money in the process?

[macdesign]

A questionable tactic; there are many organizations that are charities, and not all would be viewed in the same way ny all editors. So some editors would be working to support charities whose goals might not be seen as positive to those editors.

[seobook]

A questionable tactic; there are many organizations that are charities, and not all would be viewed in the same way ny all editors. So some editors would be working to support charities whose goals might not be seen as positive to those editors.
so give pro rated portions to split it up

I think the cfc
http://www.opm.gov/cfc/
allows you to donate portions to whatever charities.

the point is that covering costs is not evil...far more evil to make something that is no good because you chose not to fund it adequately.

[MrMackin]

>An ominous gang of surly ex-volunteer editors loitering around looking to do ... what? ... is more urban myth than reality.

There is a small vocal group who from time to time take exception to "staff" in posts in various search engine forums.

There is a much larger group of ex-volunteers who simply walked away in frustration.

The former editors I speak with just stopped caring about the project due to system failures and "staff" attitude.

[Nick W]

I just resigned as editor of various cats and as a dmoz editor in general.

No dark reason other than i just cant commit the time to it anymore but I do have a small issue with the way that additional requests to edit cats are handled.

I applied for quite a few over the last year or so, mainly stuff I just had a general interest in. It's (at least for me) extremely hard to get additional cats and lord knows the odp could use some active, participating editors that are willing to take on more responsibility...

This seems a little ungrateful to me, and a little insulting.

Nick

[cornwall]

Like I said 6 posts ago

"Somehow they all go the say way...entertaining in a bland sort of way, but really go nowhere. Took perhaps about 3 posts to get everyone into the slit trenches with their entrenched positions. By the time I got to the end of this one, I had forgotten what the original point was, so back to that original point..."

Since then 3 posts on topic, the next two take us back to the slit trenches :(

In my mind there is both an "ominous gang of surly ex-volunteer editors" and an ominous gang of surly current editors who both hold positions that make Genghis Khan look like a free thinker. No ODP thread every gets beyond this

On the one hand there appears to be no real management structure within ODP that can make far reaching decisions like taking advertising aboard in whatever way.

And on the other hand as Nick_W says he has " just resigned as editor of various cats and as a dmoz editor in general." Which is probably typical of readers of this forum.

ODP has less relevance to the web today, than it had 2 years ago. If it is to regain influence it will have to adapt - back to the original post in this thread.

Like many I assume that it is incapable, unwilling or unable to adapt. In which case it will carry on lapsing into an online club for a clique happy with their club

[JohnScott]

Google is propping nothing up. Never has, probably never will (I guess I can't say it'll never ever happen).

Without Google, DMOZ would still be around, still growing, and probably not spammed as much.

Oddly enough, the only worth most people see in DMOZ is the link pop. And DMOZ defenders usually run to Google to defend DMOZ:


Google gives priority to dmoz because that is part of its contract with AOL.

Sites listed in DMOZ are considered more credible by... Google.

Google uses the ODP data as one of its factor in its search algorithm.

If DMOZ dies, Google will follow within a month.

http://www.v7n.com/dmoz-myths.php


If not for Google, why submit? It's not like any consumers use DMOZ to navigate the web.

[fathom]

John I defend your directory Bluefind as a valuable resource to the web.

I also noted that one of the reasons you started BlueFind was an answer and be an alternative to a "volunteer workforce" similarly to DMOZ early beginnings to answer and be an alternative to Yahoo.

I am left to wonder "if" you ever get as successful as Yahoo or DMOZ will you ever be able to defend your value?

There are 9K active editors for 590K cats which contain 4 million sites (active meaning logging in at least once in a year). I have no idea what Yahoo has but would think far less since "a paid for workforce".

Be that as it may "if" paid for is the true way to go I also got to wonder at what level of workforce you would need to maintain your comfortable "no wait policy"?

Would you price yourself out of the market so to ensure "no wait for 20K+ a day submissions and have what 200 highly qualified full time editors?

Would you start extending your waiting period so to reduce paid for staff and maximize profits?

Would you say the hell with your quality of listings and just depress "accept" upon payment?

Not waste time ensuring that porn websites don't pick up expired domains to get your great link?

As nice as Bluefind is - you are not even in the same league nor managing a large group of decentralized editors - you can't begin to appreciate all the decision-making issues to avoid failure. Bluefind is but 0.2% of DMOZ size so realistically - you have 0.2% of total reliable experience.

Also I doubt any of the comments you quoted are "official DMOZ statements" thus such statements are bogus at best - and repeating them IMHO taints your own credibility.

[JohnScott]

John I defend your directory Bluefind as a valuable resource to the web.


I appreciate that, Fathom.

I am left to wonder "if" you ever get as successful as Yahoo or DMOZ will you ever be able to defend your value?

I appraise the value of a web directory based on a couple things. In any business, I suppose customer satisfaction is a primary concern. I believe we do well here. Another thing would be value offered. As a one time fee, and an affordable fee, I think the value is more than obvious.

If we ever became as large as DMOZ or Yahoo, I really can't say that the value would still be there. Taking what resources we have and sharing them with a few thousand listed websites is an easy task. Taking those same resources and sharing them amongst, say, 4,000,000 directory listings would provide very little or no value. The value would be too diluted.


DMOZ, however, is an entirely different bag of chips. Their problems are mostly organizational. Lack of strong leadership; lack of accountability; lack of resources, planning, etc.

It would be wrong to compare DMOZ and SevenSeek or BlueFind side by side. DMOZ is there to serve consumers. (Yes, I know, no consumers use DMOZ, and that's their conceptual flaw) And I am here to serve webmasters primarily (my customers).

[fathom]

I suppose customer satisfaction is a primary concern. I believe we do well here. Another thing would be value offered. As a one time fee, and an affordable fee, I think the value is more than obvious.

Wholeheartedly agree

If we ever became as large as DMOZ or Yahoo, I really can't say that the value would still be there.

Yup - That's reality.

Taking what resources we have and sharing them with a few thousand listed websites is an easy task. Taking those same resources and sharing them amongst, say, 4,000,000 directory listings would provide very little or no value. The value would be too diluted.

...and DMOZ is no different - limited value itself. The real value that comes from a DMOZ listing is the single fact that "1" listing is a listing in every single major search eninge's directory and a good handful of fair quality clones.

This isn't "because of Google either" it's 100% because of DMOZ.


Their problems are mostly organizational. Lack of strong leadership; lack of accountability; lack of resources, planning, etc.

Well that isn't truly the case... strong leadership exists - hand's down beats any leadership that we see at many forums where the bashing is condoned. It's simply amazing to see a bunch of "not paid" volunteers defend an organization where they have zero chance of any monumental gains to do so... those are the people "I want working with me".

I've worked with the kind that will defend you - for a big pay raise and if not "f-you"! Dime a dozen.

Additionally, the so-called corruption that is talked about all over the web... is at the lowest level of editing - you don't go far if you break the guidelines and truth be told you get that same "self serving" motivation whether paid or not - greed is a strange concept - you can't feed it enough so it says "ok I'm happy where I am".

It would be wrong to compare DMOZ and SevenSeek or BlueFind side by side.

Agree there... other than each directory provides value on their individual merits.

DMOZ is there to serve consumers. (Yes, I know, no consumers use DMOZ, and that's their conceptual flaw) And I am here to serve webmasters primarily (my customers).

I wouldn't be so sure of that - I've got at least one client in both your directory and DMOZ under the identical category - amazingly enough they get 2 - 7 clicks a week from each.

I would think though this isn't directory wide but in the business to business areas - their is value. In either case the direct traffic is a bonus just like the anchor, PageRank etc. - in reality no directory can complete at a search engine level for direct traffic - but they do help push more traffic via the search engines.

In any case - to truly note the 'DMOZ flaw' - I do recall a visitor to your forum quite upset that he paid BlueFind and was only getting 5 - 6 clicks a month.

So while you say 'you service webmasters' we can agree that not all that come and pay appreciate BlueFind's value for what it is... some actually want tons of direct traffic for their costs.

[JohnScott]

So while you say 'you service webmasters' we can agree that not all that come and pay appreciate BlueFind's value for what it is... some actually want tons of direct traffic for their costs.

I seem to recall one person complaining that they were not getting loads of traffic from BlueFind. No, it was two people. Both got full refunds.


Well that isn't truly the case... strong leadership exists - hand's down beats any leadership that we see at many forums where the bashing is condoned.


I'd have to question that. I have several friends who edit at DMOZ, but even they acknowledge that DMOZ lacks strong leadership. There is no single person responsible for setting a tone or a course. DMOZ has public relations problems for a reason. I'm not going to go into specifics, but I will say I think it is a problem that would be solved if there was a single, accountable "Director" who had broad authority to make changes at DMOZ and set a course and set a tone for public communication.

[kctipton]

Boy this thread got off track:

..perhaps the only real reply to NFFC's question on Dmoz running AdSense was from kctipton

Many posts later I think that's still true.

I have no power to make or break an adsense decision. It's simply my take on the Social Contract that ODP likely won't ever sell ad space.

[Brad]

NFFC asked:
Thoughts?

NFFC can correct me if I'm wrong but I think his underlying premise is, thinking about ways for Dmoz to become more financially self-sustaining. Adsense might not be the answer but having some sort of plan might not be a bad idea for a rainy day.

[NFFC]

You just about nailed it Brad.

It was really sparked by a comment from one of the Google founders [I think]. To paraphrase they said it was a shame adsense wasn't around a while ago, it could have saved some great web sites from closing.

In someways DMOZ is like a 40 year old Stepchild still living at home with its parent[s] and expecting handouts. Time comes when the handouts stop. Time comes when the stepchild needs to get a job.

[kctipton]

If ODP becomes independent (right now AOL controls the code and the hardware), I'd like to see it raise money in reasonably inoffensive ways that don't cross the Social Contract. But, it's not independent, and no fundraising of any sort will be done until that status changes -- and possibly not even then.

[NFFC]

I'm not talking about moving out, just paying your way.

>I'd like to see it raise money in reasonably inoffensive ways

Care to expand?

[kctipton]

My opinions are rather irrelevant on the matter of fundraising.

I personally think that the Mozilla foundation's method isn't too bad -- a store + a link to make direct donations.