How to get listed in DMOZ, the easy way. 2 days.

gworld

Apr 21st 2005, 12:49 am

I personaly don't care about DMOZ listing but if you like to have a listing in DMOz and you think it is beneficial for you, this is how you can do it in less than couple of days.

1-There are free programs that can download, all the listings in DMOZ category, download it and run it through other free programs that check for availiablity of a domain name. When you find one, go and register it. You can find these programs through search on Google.

2-You can also put a posting in domain seller web sites, that you are looking for DMOZ listed domains, so people can contact you.

DMOZ is full of dead domains, so both method should work fine.

3-Make 1 page with 2 frames, the height of top frame should be 1 pixel, so it can not be seen, then in bottom frame open your own web site. You should optimize this page for your own key words also.

4-Install this page as index page for the DMOZ listed domains that you have bought.

That's all folks, your contant is shown in DMOZ directory listing.

How easy is this to do? I started yesterday and I already have 4 DMOZ listed web sites, 2 in shopping, 1 finance, 1 art. The cost? less than $200.

FAQ

Have you tested this?

Yes, I bought 4 domains yesterday, made the domains, installed the pages on my server and changed the name server to point to my server. So today I am the owner of 4 DMOZ listed web site.

How is this useful for my web site?

I understand that you already have a web site but what you should think about is that being listed in DMOZ has no value, except giving you links and therefore possibly traffic through Google. So the important thing is to get high ranking in search engine and traffic.

You get this for the new domain that you buy but you are showing the content from your original web site in the new domain. This way you are generating the same amount of traffic or even more than if your original domain was listed in DMOZ.

Is this redirect?

NO, the domain is hosted, your original site contant is shown in frame.

Is this duplicate site?

NO, you are not copying the same content in both domains, you are just showing the content of your original domain.

What happens if the domain links in DMOZ links to internal page and not to the index page?

Make a custom 404 page that redirects all not found page to the index page of domain.

Who are you and why are you doing this?

I am a long term poster in another forum with a same user name. I have fighting the corrupt DMOZ editors for a long time and hoping to correct the situation in another forum, so there is a possibility of discussion the DMOZ question but it has been very difficult since the editor are also "moderators" there. Finally I am giving up and I am starting to post in other forums.

code for index.html look like this:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<base="mainFrame">
<title>DMOZLISTEDDOMAIN.com</title>
<meta name="TITLE" content="This is title of my site.">
<meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="blah-blah-blah this is my site">
<meta name="KEYWORDS" content="blah1, blah2, blah3,some other blah ">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>

<frameset rows="1,*" frameborder="NO" border="0" framespacing="0">
<frame src=" " name="topFrame" scrolling="NO" noresize title="topFrame" >
<frame src="https://www.my-own-domain-that-is-not-DMOZ-listed.com " name="mainFrame" title="mainFrame">
</frameset>
<noframes><body>
Your browser does not support frames, plus all other blah-blah-blah that is good contant for search engine optimization.
<a href=" https://www.my-own-domain-that-is-not-DMOZ-listed.com" target="_self">Without Frame site</a>
</body></noframes>
</html>

Enjoy ! :D

flak

Apr 21st 2005, 1:18 am

Any clues as to what tools you use?

gworld

Apr 21st 2005, 1:46 am

There are many tools and sites for expired DMOZ listing, do a search in Google. I am not selling any of those programs and do not like to recommend any, since I can like a program while you can hate it.

In my case, I did not want to waste time on search, so I simply put a wanted ad on one of the sites that sells domains and bought 4 domains (3 for $50/each and 1 for $40).

if you are considering buying a domain, you can check it with link below, so it still exists in the category. Some times you can get a wrong search result and search show a domain name but it doesn't exist in category (just another problem with DMOZ)

You can find the domain that you are considering with this url:

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=DMOZ-Listed-domain.com

Ajeet

Apr 21st 2005, 2:02 am

Stin

Apr 21st 2005, 2:03 am

Very interesting, wonder how long u could run that game?

subseo

Apr 21st 2005, 2:33 am

Wouldn't Google know that the WhoIs has changed to a new owner and reset all the benefits accruing from a DMOZ listing?

From my, though limited, experience, Google is smart enough to reset the toolbar pagerank and put the site to sandbox. But once the ownership transfers, content is put up, and the links from DMOZ and its clones persist, you get it back, if that's what you had on mind.

Otherwise, links are the benefit, and I can't see how google could reset the links - they are still there. DMOZ editors can possibly delete your site if, say, topic or quality changes, but the question here is why didn't they do it previously when the site was dead and there was no content, and the chance of such an accident is pretty low.

subseo

Apr 21st 2005, 2:46 am

Btw. this thread has wrong title. Correct one is "how to get a site that's listed in DMOZ" or "how to get 70-200 backlinks cheaply".

Because if you want to get listed in DMOZ, you don't want that just for the sake of having something listed, but to have one SPECIFIC web listed. So if you acquire some random personal blog site that is listed as "Joe Blog's Blog", that one is not gonna be of very big help for your "San Diego Realtor" web.

Otherwise good stuff and advice of course.... (I got two DMOZ websites in the past without even trying too much, too bad I don't have much time to do something useful with them).

flak

Apr 21st 2005, 4:31 am

I still havent found any decent tools for this job. Can anyone suggest any?

Old Welsh Guy

Apr 21st 2005, 8:08 am

Google have gone on record as saying that they zero rate expired domains, so realistically you will be starting afresh, but will get the benefit from the various backlinks from sites using dmozdata.

jlawrence

Apr 21st 2005, 8:33 am

OWG: you benefit by not having to wait indefinitely for your site to be listed in DMOZ.

gworld

Apr 21st 2005, 8:39 am

Wouldn't Google know that the WhoIs has changed to a new owner and reset all the benefits accruing from a DMOZ listing? (NOTE: This is a genuine query and not a flame - sometimes it is tough to tell the difference)

Ajeet

ArticleFactory is correct in his answer, no search engine can start change the way it sees a web site because of owner change since this is a normal business transaction and got nothing to do with actual web site.

Google any way does not refresh it's data from DMOZ more than 2-3/year.

Stin wrote:

"Very interesting, wonder how long u could run that game?"

I suppose for ever or as long as you care (Until Google drops DMOZ). What are the editors in DMOZ going to do? :confused:
become actually effective and start editing the sites, fat chance of that. :D

ArticleFactory,

You are right that may be I should have chosen a better title for my posting but I really see no difference between having your own web site listed or buy one that is listed.
There is no use of being in DMOZ, except the backlinks and effect that it has on Google. I quote one of DMOZ editors reply in the other forum:

"Search is not updated as frequently as the database.
Search is very poor at finding specific URL's (its not a search engine) "

even go to DMOZ and try search and 70% of time it returns the answer that there is a problem and search was not possible.
By buying a domain, you will get the full benefit of being listed in DMOZ, the same as your own was listed.

old welch Guy, to avoid the zero rate, if that is importnat for some one and not only the links, the solution is to buy a domain off some one who has a domain listed in DMOZ.

The domains that I bought were not expired and still had an old content and Google rating, the price is not high, in average $40-$100.

gworld

Apr 29th 2005, 9:49 am

We are in top 10 in Google now.

Some one asked me to find him a DMOZ listing, so I used Google to search for expired dmoz listing and this thread is showing as number 4 & 5 in search result. :)

I thought Ok, this is too specific search and I searched for DMOZ listing and this thread comes up as 4th result. :)

One thing is for sure, Google is really fast in indexing this forum. :D

onestop

Apr 29th 2005, 10:48 am

3-Make 1 page with 2 frames, the height of top frame should be 1 pixel, so it can not be seen, then in bottom frame open your own web site. You should optimize this page for your own key words also.

what a smart advice :) please stay away from this kind of tricks.

frankm

May 8th 2005, 5:03 pm

I ran a quick scan, and found a couple of domain names that are in "REDEMPTIONPERIOD" or "PENDINGDELETE" state. so for $5 you can buy your dmoz listing. only thing is you end up with a weird name like 1033ambulance.com ....

gworld

May 8th 2005, 9:37 pm

what a smart advice :) please stay away from this kind of tricks.

If you don't like this, you can redirect the domian that you bought to your own web site.
It doesn't change the fact that you get a listing in DMOZ in short time instead of waiting forever.

dirtdog1960theone

May 9th 2005, 9:54 am

nddb

May 9th 2005, 3:21 pm

gworld

May 9th 2005, 3:41 pm

This is an interesting idea. I think it would be hard to find a dead domain in the specific category you want, but a cool idea nonetheless. It's really sad that it even works. A lot of the dead sites I see in DMOZ are just lacking a DNS entry, but the domain has been registered for several more years. Finding a dead domain would be quite nice though. =)

Thanks!!

nddb, read my previous post in this thread. It does not matter at all which category you find your domain in since as search tool DMOZ is worthless and doesn't generate any traffic. The only importnat thing is the number of back links and the importance of it for google, and you will get it those anyway, independent of what domian you have bought. :)

nddb

May 9th 2005, 4:07 pm

say I find a dead one, then what do I do? a redirect? or just point it right to my site? (I got mostly relative links, so it shouldn't matter).

jfilley

Jun 2nd 2006, 10:16 am

It seems that this scenerio does not equal having your domain listed in dmoz. It is more like having someones site who is listed on dmoz, linking to your site. I don't think you get as many brownie points for that.

shygirl

Jun 2nd 2006, 5:23 pm

Gworld that is REALLY naughty... but I think I'd notice if this happened in one of my categories, y'know, a terribly basic concept but... like when I click to check a site ?? This 'easy street' route wouldn't work in an awful lot of cats in Dmoz, I have to say and is at best, a temporary (percieved) boost in those categories that are a bit more spammy in nature.

But Gworld , personally I am shocked ! :eek: How do you do both editing AND scamming the whole system. Yet still try to make out that you are morally correct and only 'upholding decent standards' ?? Because really luv, what you're doing is just so, well, two-faced and unashamedly self interested ?

And I thought you only wanted to make Dmoz a better place, weed out the bad sites, the underage porn, change unfair policies and overall make Dmoz the type of place even you would be proud of.

Only, you're only TOO happy to go back on all that aren't you ? And make yourself one of the people you claim to so despise.
In essence : A Dmoz editor only out for themselves, their own sites and serps. No wonder you know so much about corruption. Looks like you practice it personally and are only too happy to pass on the 'knowledge' to others. You have no real interest in editing really, you're just out for what you can get... Never ever tar me with the same brush, lump me in with editors who join 'only list their own site', or say I don't 'matter' as a newbie editor ever again to me.

At least I care about what I'm doing there. You cannot possibly.

You, like others here, in other threads the last few weeks, disappoint me greatly in your double standards.:confused:
Gworld you ARE the very thing you profess to dislike most with the directory...
A self-interested editor with no standards whatsoever, and who doesn't care about the 'ideal' as long as they have as many of their own sites listed as possible by any means.... Isn't that kind of person that you keep telling those who post here that we must get rid of, and that Dmoz is completely crap because of them and their self-interest ?

I'm speechless ! Carry on, don't mind me... I just edit there.. :mad:

gworld

Jun 2nd 2006, 7:22 pm

At least I care about what I'm doing there. You cannot possibly.

The date of original thread is Apr. 21st 2005. The editor that thread was aimed at was removed as editor about 1 month ago. Other than that:

http://www.GentlemensCafe.com/censor.jpg

minstrel

Jun 3rd 2006, 12:10 am

That is the second time this week you've posted about being disappointed, shygirl.

This may come as a huge shock to you but I don't think most people on this forum are wasting any time at all worrying whether or not you're going to be disappointed before hitting that "Post" button. Speaking for myself, I can honestly say that impressing you one way or another isn't even on my top 10 list.

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 3rd 2006, 12:44 am

Ajeet

Jun 3rd 2006, 2:11 am

Makes no odds now as expired domains are a thing of the past. If google notice a change in ownership they check the content, if the content has changed as well as ownership, the domain is zeroed. IE it is classed as a new domain again.

Whoa! I have been back ordering domain names recently. So, you are saying that if I retain the same content, I am fine, right? (I will naturally take care of the copyright issues :))

shygirl

Jun 3rd 2006, 5:18 pm

The date of original thread is Apr. 21st 2005

And ? Either you have changed your stance in which case I apologise, OR you still think it's a fun thing to do to insert iframes and laugh at scamming and causing volunteers more work blah blah ?

Which is it Gworld, have you done a complete about turn in a year, or, not ?

Minstrel, love you loads hun.. and the fact that you 'say' you are completely unmoved and disinterested in anything I have to post is absolutely NO shock to me believe me.
Though, to be honest, psychologically, (I've studied too in-depth)... it looks like you have by the looks of it been kind of keeping 'note' of my posts ? Enough to quote absolutely and exactly how many times I've said the word 'disappointed' the last few weeks ??? :eek: I personally wouldn't waste energy on someone I didn't give a toss about.
You have with me though, AND, weirdly have evidentally kept notes on my exact words within them. I AM flattered luv. :) But there was really no need to bother, I wasn't asking you personally for any opinions at all this particular thread. I was asking a fellow editor for his.
Oh and ...I can honestly say that impressing you one way or another isn't even on my top 10 list.
Yes, I guess you'd like to kid yourself on that I suppose. But, it was you (not me) who was compelled to seek some sort of attention and 'provoke a reaction' somehow here ? It's classic 'attention seeker' behaviour Minstrel. Even you must agree ( and please DON'T make me quote from basic and eminent psychology experts ).. This forum is probably the only place you have to let of some real steam every day 'off duty'. That's ok.:)

Anyway, back ON topic.

Gworld it was YOU I was asking ( not Minstrel, sorry sweetie, next time eh ?). The post is a year old and I admit I did know that when I posted last night. Since it was the actual thread that lead me here to DP for the first time, when I was researching basics like mirrors, doorway pages scams to look out for as a brand new editor. I was a bit clueless and I read loads here before joining. This thread was one of them.

I saw the post back at the top and decided to see if were still openly admitting to being a 'self-interested and possibly corrupt editor', everything since I've been posting here... that you say you are NOT and despise within it.

Which is it ??? Do you still condone this sort of thing or have you changed your mind. :confused: I really, really hope so, you seemed so sincere to me in what you've wanted to do the last few months.

ps Clueless about the pic ? Is it something to do with the Da Vinci Code ?

pps. Minstrel, if you post in reply to this, again I have to re-iterate, I wasn't actually asking YOU anything dear. I will of course understand that you will more than likely feel the need to reply anyway, anything I suppose for a bit more attention from me ;-).. you're a man and not made of wood after all ( whey hey !!!)...but pre-emptively, lets move on to the topic in question shall we ?

Is Gworld corrupt or not ? Thats all I want to know really,

minstrel

Jun 3rd 2006, 5:47 pm

Minstrel, love you loads hun.. and the fact that you 'say' you are completely unmoved and disinterested in anything I have to post is absolutely NO shock to me believe me.
Though, to be honest, psychologically, (I've studied too in-depth)... it looks like you have by the looks of it been kind of ,um, well keeping 'note' of my posts ? Enough to quote absolutely and exactly how many times I've said the word 'disappointed' the last few weeks ???
:confused:

I think you're losing it, shygirl. Can you please show me where you think I "quote[d] absolutely and exactly how many times I've said the word 'disappointed' the last few weeks"?

weirdly have evidentally kept notes on my exact words within them. I AM flattered
Again, huh? I don't need to "keep notes" to quote one of your posts - that's a basic feature of forum software.

In deference to your obvious "sensitivities", I won't bother to address the remainder of the pop psychology in your post, other than to note that the post is absurd and rather pathetic.

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 4th 2006, 1:13 am

Shygirl & Mistrel sitting in a tree :D

Genie

Jun 4th 2006, 3:40 am

Clueless about the pic ? Is it something to do with the Da Vinci Code?
Gworld's patriotic avatar is the coat of arms of Canada. I believe he told us somewhere that he lives in Vancouver except in winter.

gworld

Jun 4th 2006, 9:22 am

Which is it Gworld, have you done a complete about turn in a year, or, not ?

DMOZ listings should not be used as gaining marketing advantage or as prize to keep people quite.

Not listing in DMOZ should not be used as keeping out competition or punishing those who criticize.

As long as both events are possible, people should have a possibility to fight it, so they don't need to chose between being silenced or punished. Like everything else in DMOZ, correct procedures will remove the need for such measures.

ps Clueless about the pic ? Is it something to do with the Da Vinci Code ?

http://www.Gentlemenscafe.com/censor.jpg

You tell me, what do you think it is. May be some of other editors posting here can clarify it for you. ;)

compostannie

Jun 4th 2006, 9:27 am

Gworld, I like the picture. Who's the artist?

orlady

Jun 4th 2006, 11:08 am

DMOZ listings should not be used as gaining marketing advantage or as prize to keep people quite.

Not listing in DMOZ should not be used as keeping out competition or punishing those who criticize.
Agreed.

As long as both events are possible, people should have a possibility to fight it, so they don't need to chose between being silenced or punished. Like everything else in DMOZ, correct procedures will remove the need for such measures.
At ODP/DMOZ we try not to accept people as editors who will abuse the directory, but we are not psychic, and when in doubt we treat people as innocent until proven guilty.

Furthermore, when abusive editing is discovered, we try to eradicate it and prevent the abusive editor from repeating the offense. However, we cannot possibly notice every instance of abuse when it happens. Therefore, we have a procedure in place that allows all directory users to report problems in the directory, whether the problems are caused by abusive editors, spammers, or plain old "link rot." All abuse reports submitted to http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ are accessible to staff and all meta or admin editors, and they are permanently archived, so there are checks and balances on their handling.

DMOZ editor accounts are not removed merely for "criticizing" DMOZ. When editing privileges are removed from an editor who has criticized the project, you can be sure that the editor's actions have gone beyond mere criticism to include other forms of directory abuse. ;)

Genie

Jun 4th 2006, 11:12 am

Oh that picture. It is called 'censor' was lifted from http://www.habanaelegante.com/Lengua/Lengua3.html I presume.

gworld

Jun 4th 2006, 1:21 pm

when abusive editing is discovered

http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/seenoevil.jpg

lmocr

Jun 4th 2006, 1:31 pm

That is a correct picture for what happens when abusive editing is discovered. The metas, staff, or admins will take care of the situation and no one other than a meta, staff, or admin will ever hear about, see, or talk about what the actual situation is. That policy is in place to protect both innocent editors and the directory.

Or were you intending to mean something else with that adorable monkey picture? :rolleyes:

vulcano

Jun 4th 2006, 1:40 pm

Oh that picture. It is called 'censor' was lifted from http://www.habanaelegante.com/Lengua/Lengua3.html I presume.

Won't ask you how you found that picture, but there are some other fantastic sites that can be found at http://www.habanaelegante.com/
e.g. http://www.opushabana.cu/breviario.php

Thanks for the link.;)

gworld

Jun 4th 2006, 1:51 pm

shygirl

Jun 4th 2006, 5:03 pm

Gworld and those interested in the serious stuff please scroll down a bit to ON topic questions.

But, Minstrel said : I think you're losing it, shygirl. Can you please show me where you think I "quote[d] absolutely and exactly how many times I've said the word 'disappointed' the last few weeks"?
Ooops..One post up from the above and in the same thread Minstrel. Doh ! Busted.

Minstrel said :
That is the second time this week you've posted about being disappointed, shygirl.

Blimey Minstrel ... You did EXACTLY what I said you would do a la 'attention seeking' !!! :eek: I just knew you wouldn't be able to resist me and post 'something' in there in response. I'm thrilled ! I knew you would despite the fact that I have discouraged you several times by mentioning that my posts here were not really relevant to you at all. ( see my previous quote below :D )

I will of course understand that you will more than likely feel the need to reply anyway, anything I suppose for a bit more attention from me ;-).

Positive or negative attention is all the same to those that seek it. But you just keep on wanting me desperately to respond don't you sweetie awwww, bless your little cotton socks. I'm so blushing and fluffing my hair up.
other than to note that the post is absurd and rather pathetic.

Well yes, for you I guess, it IS starting to look that way the way you keep 'jumping in there'. But we are all starting to see it now, so don't worry. Nothing wrong with a bit of harmless flirting and banter eh ???
Shygirl & Mistrel sitting in a tree
I AM secretly hoping so I must say !!! And despite the nature of his posts to the contrary ( he pretends coyly that he's a tad annoyed with me lol ). We can all see transparently that his behaviour speaks volumes otherwise in that he cannot leave my posts alone, even when he's not even the teenisest tiny bit even slightly involved !!! (wink wink, nudge nudge).

But back ON topic.
I'm still a bit worried that Gworld has been involved in telling the world how to scam Dmoz, then paradoxically gets pissed off with editors and blames THEM soley ( huh ???) that so many editors 'may' be scamming Dmoz and how can we live with ourselves ??? That's just sooo weird ? And a bit hypocritical in the extreme I think personally.

No-one else can see that ? :eek:

Gworld, over to you ? Please explain what side of the fence you are this year ? Would be good for me otherwise I don't see why you keep going on about corrupt editors if you admitted joyfully last year that you scam Dmoz mercilessly yourself ?

Ps Ponder THIS pic, it's a conceptual, yet strangely contemporary representation of part of this post in a tormented emotional 'romeo and juliet' type context. ( editor and long standing critic ).

"Where do I begin to tell the story
Of how great a love can be
The sweet love story that is older than the sea
The simple truth about the love she brings to me..
Where do I start
With her first hello
She gave new meaning to this empty world of mine
They'll never be another love another time
She came into my life and made the living fine"

http://www.markdroberts.com/images/Love-Story-3.jpg

brizzie

Jun 5th 2006, 1:29 pm

No-one else can see that ?
Gworld is interested in the destruction of DMOZ not its salvation ;) The technique he suggests is commonly used by porn merchants to insert their sites into the main DMOZ directory. If you haven't removed one yet shygirl the time will come at some point. And who knows, the webmaster may have got the idea from gworld.

That is why any time anyone actually responds to his claims and tries to do something constructive about it he will knock it down - it would wreck his master plan if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

gworld

Jun 5th 2006, 1:59 pm

The technique he suggests is commonly used by porn merchants to insert their sites into the main DMOZ directory.

Do you mean porn merchants who are not Meta and other senior editors in DMOZ? :rolleyes:

That is why any time anyone actually responds to his claims and tries to do something constructive about it he will knock it down - it would wreck his master plan if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 5th 2006, 3:09 pm

brizzie

Jun 5th 2006, 4:05 pm

DMOZ is an alltruistic dinosaur in a commercial field. It will very soon lose Google and then it will all be downhill from there.
I think you've misunderstood what the DMOZ concept is all about. It is a volunteer project staffed mainly by people who don't give two hoots about commercialism. If Google ceases to take the data dump then a lot of the pressure is off, a lot of the reasons why the project has to deal with increasing amounts of spam and with corrupt editors is instantly removed. If anything it strengthens the actual project. The decent editors edit for the project and not for Google et al - for most of them Google dropping their directory would be a day to get out the champagne and have a party.

these however have been pushed aside by a large percentage of people on the inseide, who now do not let othersin, and, When they DO let them in, control.
There have always been standards set for accepting editors and from what I have seen, from the inside, the incidence of bullying is negligible compared to the early years. As for control it is virtually impossible - in more than three years of opening cans of worms internally no-one ever tried to control me and any attempts in that direction would have been firmly rebutted. There is a false perception put around by some of its enemies, often former crooked editors who got caught, that DMOZ does not tolerate dissent. Nothing could be further from the truth - constructive dissent usually brings promotion - "yes men" are no good in any organisation and DMOZ recognises that. It suits some to keep repeating the myths - go figure :rolleyes:

gworld

Jun 5th 2006, 4:26 pm

I think you've misunderstood what the DMOZ concept is all about. It is a volunteer project staffed mainly by people who don't give two hoots about commercialism.

http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/laughing.gif

If Google ceases to take the data dump then a lot of the pressure is off, a lot of the reasons why the project has to deal with increasing amounts of spam and with corrupt editors is instantly removed. If anything it strengthens the actual project. The decent editors edit for the project and not for Google et al - for most of them Google dropping their directory would be a day to get out the champagne and have a party.

May be I am confused but if this is the case, what is the reason behind the thread in internal forum discussing how to get DMOZ listed sites in to the new Google directory? :rolleyes:

ishfish

Jun 5th 2006, 4:40 pm

May be I am confused but if this is the case, what is the reason behind the thread in internal forum discussing how to get DMOZ listed sites in to the new Google directory?I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't remember a thread that dealt with that subject recently. Could you be more specific?

compostannie

Jun 5th 2006, 5:03 pm

May be I am confused but if this is the case, what is the reason behind the thread in internal forum discussing how to get DMOZ listed sites in to the new Google directory?
I believe you are confused. Ishfish is correct, there is no thread discussing this.

shygirl

Jun 5th 2006, 5:09 pm

It has at its heart Altruistic Ideals,

DMOZ is an alltruistic dinosaur in a commercial field.

And that really is the saddest thing of all. The fact that folks somehow think that being altruistic is something to be ashamed of in todays world.

It's so cynical and bitter. Bugger Google, I do what I do online and answer to no-one. Editing I do off my own back for unselfish reasons and there are many editors here and within Dmoz who do the same. Otherwise why would someone do 1000's of edits ? Logically it just doesn't make sense that editors would do that just to get one or two of their own listed. But a lot of editors do have those numbers. Why would they purely for their own gains ?

However in this thread :

1) Gworld hasn't actually stated where his morals lie yet.
Either as a person who craps on about everything being suspect there because he wants a better Dmoz, or a person who just wants to cause trouble no matter what and will laugh at the ease and impart the knowledge to others how easy it is to scam the place.

He still hasn't said which.

2) Minstrel has yet to respond this time because as much as he likes his sarcastic and personally insulting comments here, he is blind to the fact he's gotten lazy and...basically contributes absolutely nothing else of note or consequence. No-one else seems to have picked this up yet, but just read a few of them. No real content, just attacks at people here who are only trying their best, to explain their own experiences.

I often imagine Minstrel, when he's been particularly insulting and intentionally hurtful to individuals here ( and he does know he is a bully sometimes)... wearing a particularly fetching shade of 'topaz' eyeshadow, french frilly knickers and a flowery dressing gown. Personally I find it takes the edge of that astute and very acid tongue of his. He has gotten extremely lazy in backing his claims up with anything solid or examples to support them. For someone steeped in the fact that all theories should be very basically research based and that assumptions should NEVER ever be made over anyone's 'mental facilties' or ' intelligence levels'. Especially as a psychologist (!!) . Yet still finding it amusing to post that people who post opinions which contradict his are either dumb or mentally challenged !...it's lame and very unprofessional.

Dmoz isn't perfect. But lets get through at least one thread without accusations of 'sub-intelligence', 'pathetic-ness' or that the editor in question 'has no idea what they're talking about'. It's funny sometimes, but in no way constructive. I'm really bored with it..so it's been Frilly Knickers and eyeshadow for me here since about 2 weeks after I started contributing here.

Anyway, back on topic, Altruistic ideals are never IMHO something to condemn, indeed it something to aim for !! Yes, things sometimes go tits up, self-interested people do get through, mistakes are made. I could go on. But lets not discount those people that are in it just because they want to be with nothing to gain.

Altruistic is a GOOD thing not bad, no matter how commercial the world is today. Otherwise if the same thing applied elsewhere you could kiss goodbye to Oxfam or Cancer relief etc etc. You should be celebrating not condemming folks for that. In the future who knows ? But at the moment Dmoz is often described as a 'dinosaur', yet it has survived web evolution time and time again. And it's still being used by the biggest and most influential presence on the net today. Hardly then, a dinosaur.

Just a survivor. ;)

gworld

Jun 5th 2006, 5:34 pm

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't remember a thread that dealt with that subject recently. Could you be more specific?

There is a thread that the new Google directory is being discussed. As one of the suggestion in that thread, I think it is actually by a friend of Brizzie (Jea..) that editors should join in and add the sites in their category and even a suggestion to may be write a tool that makes this easier to import to Google. It is a simple plan to spam the new directory with DMOZ listings but what they don't understand is that new directory is different from DMOZ and it will not be there just because they have listed the sites. I am sure Google has some kind of algorithm to consider such manipulations. ;)

ishfish

Jun 5th 2006, 5:53 pm

I still can't find it. What forum was it in? What was the thread title?

shygirl

Jun 5th 2006, 6:02 pm

Ah Gworld...

The oldest chestnut in the book. If you can't answer honestly what's been asked, just ignore. :rolleyes:

Very interesting yet very predictable. ( I'm yawning with boredom). You seem a bit of a woss when it comes to the crunch really ? You've accused many here and not politely either, of ignoring your own Dmoz related questions.

Either as a person who craps on about everything being suspect there because he wants a better Dmoz, or a person who just wants to cause trouble no matter what and will laugh at the ease and impart the knowledge to others how easy it is to scam the place.

He still hasn't said which.

You could just answer ? Are you too scared luv ? :confused: I'm starting to think your avoidance of my direct questions to you is obviously because you are afraid of answering them.

gworld

Jun 5th 2006, 6:11 pm

Ah Gworld...

The oldest chestnut in the book. If you can't answer honestly what's been asked, just ignore. :rolleyes:

It was answered previously here. (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=967310&postcount=30)

From the posting:

people should have a possibility to fight it, so they don't need to chose between being silenced or punished.

brizzie

Jun 5th 2006, 6:42 pm

There is a thread that the new Google directory is being discussed.
You mean the Google Coop. Let's assume you are right and there is a thread. It wouldn't be surprising, editors talk about all sorts of things.

editors should join in and add the sites in their category
According to you, people "are adding your favorite sites to your search results." Seems reasonable that editors should add the sites in their category if they want. Many editors have always operated across open source projects.

plan to spam the new directory with DMOZ listings
How is adding listings spam exactly? Isn't that what the Coop is for?

I am sure Google has some kind of algorithm to consider such manipulations
How is it manipulation?

Since Google part owns DMOZ don't you think they would have objected to such a suggestion if they felt it inappropriate?

I think it is actually by a friend of Brizzie (Jea..)
The editor to whom you are referring has always taken a keen interest in Google and its relationship with DMOZ. In no way does that, or the existence of a discussion on the Coop, mean that a large number of editors would not throw a party if Google stopped taking the data dump.

what is the reason behind the thread in internal forum discussing how to get DMOZ listed sites in to the new Google directory?
So to disprove what I said I assume most editors are participating in this conspiracy you believe is being formulated? How active is this thread? When was the last post? What level of support has it got?

gworld

Jun 5th 2006, 7:11 pm

The editor to whom you are referring has always taken a keen interest in Google and its relationship with DMOZ. In no way does that, or the existence of a discussion on the Coop, mean that a large number of editors would not throw a party if Google stopped taking the data dump.
:rolleyes:

If you mean a goodbye party before leaving DMOZ, I can agree with you. ;)

Do you think the reason that one of the few threads in internal forum that always have activity is about the next Google update, is because the editors so dislike Google? :rolleyes:

minstrel

Jun 5th 2006, 7:14 pm

There comes a point in the life of any organisation where it becomes unmanageable. DMOZ hit that a while ago. It has at its heart Altruistic Ideals, these however have been pushed aside by a large percentage of people on the inside, who now do not let othersin, and, When they DO let them in, control. DMOZ is a dead duck, it is something that can no longer be what it was intended to be, simply because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That's a very concise and very accurate description of the organization and its slow but inevitable decay, Old Welsh Guy.

I think you've misunderstood what the DMOZ concept is all about.
I don't think so. I think you've misunderstood what OWG said, because you've reacted to the post as an editor instead of an independent thinker. What he said was dead on.

As for you, Shygirl, I already told you why I am not replying to your claims. It's obvious that you have some sort of psychological issue or disability and I have no wish to either attack someone in that position or to encourage delusional and egocentric thinking. Carry on as you were. But at least try to read what OWG said before reacting to it - you are missing the point of his post totally.

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 6th 2006, 1:01 am

Brizzie please do not tell me I have misunderstood what DMOZ was about, I was around before DMOZ started, and witnessed its birth with joy. I have been on the inside and on the outside so have viewed it from both sides. I have corrected poor submissions, and helped many toget quality sites into the index. I edit at some decent directories, and in fact edit the UK for Skaffe so like I said, lets not be condescending to each other. I have supported DMOZ when it deserves it, but stand by what I said.

There have always been standards set for accepting editors
I have seen too many good aceptable applications rejected to believe that there is not protectionalism going on.

being altruistic is something to be ashamed of
Shygirl where on earth did I mention being ashamed? it is assumptions like this that REALLY get peoples backs up. Altruistic ideals are never IMHO something to condemn' you really are an arrogant person aren't you! WHO SAID YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED, who condemned them? CERTAINLY not me. I am one of the most altruistic people you will meet. I run for free many websites for groups, churches and charities, I give away advice constantly, I give free hosting to groups and individuals, and YOU accuse me like this? How dare you?

You should be celebrating not condemming folks for that WHo in God's name condemned anyone. Might I suggest you get down off that saddle of the high horse you are on and actually READ MY INITIAL POST.

In my post I stated that

it is something that can no longer be what it was intended to be - this is fact, as intially no one cared about SEo etc, and everyone was building a great resource, now, while many still follow these ideals many also use it to their own advantage which is a cancer eating at its heart. Crooked editors are altering titles, I have seen this with my own eyes so please don't defend it by mentioning the editor audit trail that exists. I know it can be checked, but people rarely have the time.

DMOZ is an alltruistic dinosaur in a commercial field - FACT , DMOZ can not fulfill the roll it was intended to simply because it is incapable of processing the large volume of submissions it gets. It is selecting and controlling (as in what categories the editors edit) editors in such a way that the backlog is getting worse by the day. Eventually the dinosaur will collapse under its own weight, or simply become an object of no worth and be largely ignored.

Finally you mention Oxfam, and I am glad you did, because here is a small fact for you. One Oxfam shop was paying its manager £30,000 a year, and the shop was generating revenue of £29000 . This is a classic case that illustrates what I am saying.

In another case in the uk someone gave some clothes to a charity shop, in the pocket they had hidden a large sum of money for safekeeping and forgot. When they realised what they had done, they returned to the charity shop, but were told they could not have the money back as they had donated it to the charity. The charity had found the money, said nothing to the person, and banked it. He then had to take legal action to get back his money.

This is the sort of lost ideals I am talking about.

When I said it is an altruistic dinosaur in a ocmmercial world, I am speaking of the fact that every day it processes less sites than it receives, therefore it is indefensible to say that it is not getting worse by the day.

I love dmoz and appluad its ideals, but sadly it can NOT compete, nor can it/does it provide anything like the standards it set out to initially. It is all fine and dandy keping up editorial selection standards, but when the directory is sinking under the volume of submissions, it is akin to re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic!

I am annoyed, but not surprised by your post, as this is just the sort of aggressive post that DOMZ zealots make of late when anything critical is levelled against their baby.

Thankfully I can dismiss your comments as the rantings of an unhinged individual, as you CLEARLY did not read and digect my initial post.
---------------------

gworld

Jun 6th 2006, 5:41 am

- this is fact, as intially no one cared about SEo etc, and everyone was building a great resource, now, while many still follow these ideals many also use it to their own advantage which is a cancer eating at its heart. Crooked editors are altering titles, I have seen this with my own eyes so please don't defend it by mentioning the editor audit trail that exists. I know it can be checked, but people rarely have the time.

I don't want to look at the gift horse in the mouth but what is the cause of this sudden change of heart? :confused:
You were one of those who were fighting against me when I said the same thing previously. ;)

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 6th 2006, 6:22 am

LOL Gworld, yeh we have had one or two hummdingers on this LOL, but I fought against you when I considered what you were saying was wrong, there are no friends in right and wrong ;)

I don't have a change of heart, and disagree with what you are suggesting in bait and switch, it stinks and is really black hat. But on this occasion it is a case of glass houses and stone throwing ;) and When I made a statement about DMOZ, I got attacked by Shygirl, patronised, quoted out of context etc.

I really do not get involved with he said she said, but I thought it odd that simple comments should provoke such an attack :( Although I have to say that after having read my post it does come across as a little aggressive maybe :(

gworld

Jun 6th 2006, 9:01 am

I really do not get involved with he said she said, but I thought it odd that simple comments should provoke such an attack

LOL, you are just too sensitive. That was not an attack, you should read what they post toward me to understand what attack is. ;)
How is these days with a guy from WPW, the big defender of DMOZ? I suppose he is not so keen on attacking others, deleting posts and locking threads after what has happened. :)

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 6th 2006, 9:59 am

:D Made me chuckle. a bit like the original Crocodile Dundee. " look out, he's got a knife" reply " That's not a knife, THIS is a knife"

brizzie

Jun 6th 2006, 11:56 am

I have been on the inside and on the outside so have viewed it from both sides.
Ditto. But your perceptions and conclusions are wrong, plain and simple. In my own opinion.

Gworld - you didn't answer the questions about why editors getting involved in the Google Coop constitutes spam or manipulation.

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 6th 2006, 12:11 pm

Ditto. But your perceptions and conclusions are wrong, plain and simple. In my own opinion.

Then our perceptions and opinions differ so we shall agree to disagree :)

gworld

Jun 6th 2006, 2:14 pm

Gworld - you didn't answer the questions about why editors getting involved in the Google Coop constitutes spam or manipulation.

The Google Co-Op is designed that each editor list sites that they have visited and know that it is quality site. Most likely Google will sort through suggestion with some kind of algorithm and list sites that they believe are quality sites in their directory. It is not designed, so a group of people can conspire together to join and at the same time use some kind of import tools to import the sites for each person, in order to give an artificial image of those sites popularity. I suppose after so many years of spamming DMOZ, it is hard to give up on old habits, specially when they can see the writing on the wall about the future of DMOZ. ;)

crossman

Jun 6th 2006, 2:30 pm

Gworld - you didn't answer the questions about why editors getting involved in the Google Coop constitutes spam or manipulation.The Google Co-Op is designed that each editor list sites that they have visited and know that it is quality site. Most likely Google will sort through suggestion with some kind of algorithm and list sites that they believe are quality sites in their directory. It is not designed, so a group of people can conspire together to join and at the same time use some kind of import tools to import the sites for each person, in order to give an artificial image of those sites popularity. I suppose after so many years of spamming DMOZ, it is hard to give up on old habits, specially when they can see the writing on the wall about the future of DMOZ. ;)

Gworld since this is your conspiracy theory, then it must also certainly apply to anybody, like you, webmasters and seos much more. (Since many webmasters spam dmoz , other sites, and the internet all the time)

gworld

Jun 6th 2006, 2:46 pm

Gworld since this is your conspiracy theory, then it must also certainly apply to anybody, like you, webmasters and seos much more. (Since many webmasters spam dmoz , other sites, and the internet all the time)

LOL, you are right, I never said or imagined that some of DMOZ editors are the only spammers in the whole Internet. While I agree that many will try similar things, so far, I have not seen any other group that is planning to try an organized manipulation of Google Co-op. My response was in regard to brizzie's post and his claims of DMOZ editors not being interested in Google. ;)

gboisseau

Jun 6th 2006, 4:32 pm

While I agree that many will try similar things, so far, I have not seen any other group that is planning to try an organized manipulation of Google Co-op. ;)
LOL, 3 or 4 editors discussing in an internal forum (with the last post over a week ago) whether it is possible to have DMOZ listed in the Co-op is hardly "an organized manipulation of Google Co-op". Where do you come up with this garbage? You had better run to the local grocery store and stock up on aluminum foil - the aliens are coming, too. :o

shygirl

Jun 6th 2006, 5:29 pm

Duplicate post

shygirl

Jun 6th 2006, 5:56 pm

I am annoyed, but not surprised by your post, as this is just the sort of aggressive post that DOMZ zealots make of late when anything critical is levelled against their baby.

Thankfully I can dismiss your comments as the rantings of an unhinged individual, as you CLEARLY did not read and digect my initial post.

Finally, someone with a bit of backbone when challenged ! :)
As for the 'unhinged' and 'delusional' stuff ? We'll see...;) Dmoz being 'my baby' is taking things a bit far and with respect OWG, you haven't obviously read my posts here either. Read them also before you make any assumptions about me. I know who you are.
Personally I prefer to take real life a little more seriously than the mere speculation that goes on here. I do some good works of my own in my personal life but don't feel they are relevant there. I enjoy researching and making my own mind up about 'conspriacy theories' that members posting here refer to time and again within Dmoz. Some I agree with, some I don't. Favourable or unfavourable Dmoz-wise makes no odds to me.
Gworld and Minstrel WILL admit that (lying if they don't). I've upset more than a few editors with a posts Dmoz wise and not agreeing with currrent policies as they stand.

Anyway in response :

I have seen too many good aceptable applications rejected to believe that there is not protectionalism going on.

Where have you seen them ? Or are you just 'glossing over things' with another sweeping statement. Back up saying things like that or they will be questioned I'm afraid. Where have you been privvy to applications ?

you really are an arrogant person aren't you! WHO SAID YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED, who condemned them? CERTAINLY not me. I am one of the most altruistic people you will meet. I run for free many websites for groups, churches and charities, I give away advice constantly, I give free hosting to groups and individuals, and YOU accuse me like this? How dare you?

Lighten up a bit, this is a forum, not real life. If I'm arrogant what does it matter to you. At least I'm not running away with my tail between my legs at the first sign of trouble.
If my opinions affect you THAT much you might want to lie down with a flannel over your eyes instead of reading here. I dare because I disagree with you. Simple.
this is fact, as intially no one cared about SEo etc, and everyone was building a great resource, now, while many still follow these ideals many also use it to their own advantage which is a cancer eating at its heart. Crooked editors are altering titles, I have seen this with my own eyes so please don't defend it by mentioning the editor audit trail that exists. I know it can be checked, but people rarely have the time.

This is WHY I disagree. I don't have any websites, I do not care about seo and I prefer to look at the postive sides rather than the negative. Here it seems rather the opposite. I do my own thinking thanks and I also do not follow 'audit trails' either. I think yov'e become a bit blinkered along with the rest of those who sit back and critisise. You spend far too much time studying the very commercial and lucrative ( as you pointed out yourself ) areas.
Now point me out a few non-commercial categories and play the same 'crooked editor' card and it doesn't work does it ? You've got to be honest. Where do crooked editors fit in in sections that don't make money ?
FACT , DMOZ can not fulfill the roll it was intended to simply because it is incapable of processing the large volume of submissions it gets.
FACT : DMOZ can not fulfill the roll it was intended to simply because it is incapable of processing the large volume COMMERCIAL submissions it gets. In my own non-commercial sections I have to go out and LOOK for them ! The same applies to 1000's or other categories and 100's of other editors.
It is selecting and controlling (as in what categories the editors edit) editors in such a way that the backlog is getting worse by the day.
Yes, that is because most only apply to edit commercial categories. This isn't rocket science. Most sites submitted are out to make money !!! :rolleyes:
Send them over to Kid's and Teen's homework sections then, if editors are that keen? And are they ? Are they that keen on just editing and just being a Dmoz editor ?
Can you see a pattern here forming.

Commercial = Loads of sites
Commercial = Loads of Editor Applications.

You've missed the fact, all the critics have, that there is a HUGE difference between those that want to edit for the sake of it, and those that want to edit for percieved commercial gains. There is no 'fine line'. You either want to edit in Health/Cancer research or you want to edit in Shopping/Electronic Gadgets.
Now, I'll ask you again with your assumption that good editors are being refused, just what do you think the ratio is to those that apply to edit in Cancer sections to those that want to edit in Shopping sections ? Try to be honest since as mentioned, you've seen loads of good applications yourself ?

Lastly,

I am speaking of the fact that every day it processes less sites than it receives, therefore it is indefensible to say that it is not getting worse by the day.
I love dmoz and appluad its ideals, but sadly it can NOT compete,

Cannot compete with what exactly ?

I know you're well respected in these circles OWG. But that doesn't mean you can make sweeping statements about things without backing them up with anything other than indignations someone has 'deigned' to disagree with you. Minstrel and Gworld are adequate enough (I suppose) for that sort of thing.
I'm going back on shift now. Ciao.;) In fact I may be absent for a little while due to my recent promotion. Time will tell.

Thanks to everyone for the green reps over the frilly french knickers !!

jjwill

Jun 6th 2006, 7:27 pm

Wow! shygirl is giving brizzie a run for his money for the most long winded award. :D

minstrel

Jun 6th 2006, 7:32 pm

The difference is that brizzie's long posts make sense, at least most of the time. Shygirl's should pretty much all be like the one just above there, where it says

Duplicate post

jjwill

Jun 6th 2006, 7:34 pm

LOL. That was pretty funny. Not nice, but funny.

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 7th 2006, 12:48 am

Rather than getting our French knickers in a twis ;) I will try to keep it short . I haven’t read your other posts, as I was replying to the one in this thread, that is all that really concerned me at the time.

I have been party to submitted applications that were written by a meta editor, and they were rejected, so I am talking about first hand experience.

The whole point of a forum is to debate and disagree, I might make use of your flannel idea, though, Do I have to use the DMOZ flannel or will any flannel do ;)

I have not, nor do I spend time examining DMOZ, lucrative or otherwise. My mantra to myself and others when submitting to directories (DMOZ included) always has and always will be “do it once, do it right, and forget about it”

[QUOTE]Now point me out a few non-commercial categories and play the same 'crooked editor' card and it doesn't work does it ? You've got to be honest. Where do crooked editors fit in in sections that don't make money ?
I have left this comment in to reply. This backs up my argument, in that it is an altruistic beast in a commercial world and for this reason can not compete (with other directories)

I appreciate that you have to go looking for sites to add, as do I on the directories I edit/own, commercial and non commercial.

Commercial = Loads of sites
Commercial = Loads of Editor Applications.

I honestly do not know what the ratio is, but it would be obvious to a blind man that there would be more applications and rejections to sommercial value areas, than non commercial, simply because the bulk of people are motivated more by mammon than altruism.

Cannot compete with what exactly ? Other directories of a commercial nature. Like it or not, DMOZ (Still keep typing ODP) :D is operating in a commercial world, and it DOES have to compete with other directories. It might not want to, but it either does, or dies.

Thanks for the ‘respect’ compliment, apologies if I have offended you with my harsh old manner, but everyone has the right to disagree, I was not wound up about the disagree part, I was wound up that you disagreed to stuff I had not said :( Maybe you continued the posting in the thread based on comments to tothers, rather than mine as an isolated post. No harm done though.

Congratulations on the promotion, and why have I not seen the French Nickers?

gworld

Jun 7th 2006, 11:56 am

I have been party to submitted applications that were written by a meta editor, and they were rejected, so I am talking about first hand experience.

First they make an environment that attracts those who only want to join so they can manipulate the system, why else some one wants to go through hell to edit a category that he/she has no interest in?

Second, they claim that the reason for not accepting applications is to keep the worse elements out, who else did they expect to apply? :confused:

Third, they are happy and proud that they have only accepted the bad ones, plus occasional worse applicants. :rolleyes:

funlounge

Jun 7th 2006, 12:18 pm

Dmoz is really going down...

I tried contacting the category reviewers, signing up as a reviewer,
and never got a reply, not even a rejection email...

Maybe somebody ought to start another ODP

lmocr

Jun 7th 2006, 12:24 pm

Maybe somebody ought to start another ODPThat sounds like a great idea - of course you'd have to call it something else since that name is already taken ;)

jjwill

Jun 7th 2006, 1:06 pm

minstrel

Jun 7th 2006, 4:50 pm

Maybe somebody ought to start another ODP
That sounds like a great idea - of course you'd have to call it something else since that name is already taken ;)

"She plunged into a sea of platitudes, and with the powerful breast stroke of a channel swimmer, made her confident way towards the white cliffs of the obvious." ~ W. Somerset Maugham

brizzie

Jun 7th 2006, 6:09 pm

First they make an environment that attracts those who only want to join so they can manipulate the system, why else some one wants to go through hell to edit a category that he/she has no interest in?
That is hilarious. It really is. It is suggested that first time editors apply for categories that are not highly commercialised and subject to spam that can be difficult to detect. Because editing those categories requires a degree of trust and quite a lot of experience in spam detection. Rejecting editors for highly commercial spam prone categories is rejecting those most likely to manipulate. Who asks anyone to edit a category they have no personal interest in. If all your interests are in hotel booking sites, casinos, financial services, real estate, and garden furniture, you lead a sad life. What, there is no favourite author, no movie star you admire, no social issue or historical topic, no local community, no health subject, no form of art or culture, no computer game, nothing else you are interested in that would show your commitment to project principles except being assigned to deal with a category that you could do a lot of damage in if a mistake was made in your selection?

I have been party to submitted applications that were written by a meta editor, and they were rejected, so I am talking about first hand experience.
This was something raised by LVH elsewhere - his application was written by an experienced editall. Do you not think that meta editors are well experienced in dealing with applications that are clearly coached? And I mean beyond giving generic advice and tips that can be found in guidelines.

Third, they are happy and proud that they have only accepted the bad ones, plus occasional worse applicants.
Well someone accepted you. Obviously more than once. But I don't think the ones responsible would be very proud of it! And the fact that you slipped on by is likely to reduce the chances of others being given the benefit of the doubt. You are someone who has manipulated and abused the directory through purchasing listed domains and then using them for your own benefit after all. You must admit there is a fault in a system that lets you in more than once.

I tried contacting the category reviewers, signing up as a reviewer,
and never got a reply, not even a rejection email...
Editors are discouraged from replying to email from submitters because of the risk (real risk) of ending up on the wrong end of threats including of physical violence. Sad but true. If you applied to become an editor then the system should have issued automatic acknowledgements you had to reply to and if rejected you would have been told. Conclusion - your application did not get through or you did not reply to an acknowledgement (spam filters have been known to intercept). The answer is to apply then check in the Resource Zone that it has been received if you don't get a reply.

gworld

Jun 7th 2006, 6:54 pm

That is hilarious. It really is. It is suggested that first time editors apply for categories that are not highly commercialised and subject to spam that can be difficult to detect. Because editing those categories requires a degree of trust and quite a lot of experience in spam detection. Rejecting editors for highly commercial spam prone categories is rejecting those most likely to manipulate. Who asks anyone to edit a category they have no personal interest in. If all your interests are in hotel booking sites, casinos, financial services, real estate, and garden furniture, you lead a sad life. What, there is no favourite author, no movie star you admire, no social issue or historical topic, no local community, no health subject, no form of art or culture, no computer game, nothing else you are interested in that would show your commitment to project principles except being assigned to deal with a category that you could do a lot of damage in if a mistake was made in your selection?

This was something raised by LVH elsewhere - his application was written by an experienced editall. Do you not think that meta editors are well experienced in dealing with applications that are clearly coached? And I mean beyond giving generic advice and tips that can be found in guidelines.

Well someone accepted you. Obviously more than once. But I don't think the ones responsible would be very proud of it! And the fact that you slipped on by is likely to reduce the chances of others being given the benefit of the doubt. You are someone who has manipulated and abused the directory through purchasing listed domains and then using them for your own benefit after all. You must admit there is a fault in a system that lets you in more than once.

http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/brainwash.jpg

:rolleyes:

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 8th 2006, 7:43 am

This was something raised by LVH elsewhere - his application was written by an experienced editall. Do you not think that meta editors are well experienced in dealing with applications that are clearly coached? And I mean beyond giving generic advice and tips that can be found in guidelines.

Well that HAS to be the funniest and most ridicuolous thing I have ever read in a forum, Fair play to you , you win the prize :D

Who are these meta editors you speak of? GOLDILOCKS.

Ooh that application is too bad , lets reject it

ooo that application is too GOOD let's reject it.

AHHH this application is just right. Let's accept it all up.

Cmon Brizzie you are now taking this debate into the realms of fantasy and Hans Christan Andreson. Do you SERIOUSLY expect us to believe that applications are rejected because they appear to have been written by a meta editor? HOW can an aplication be too good? And as a point of interest WHY would an application having received assistance from another Meta be bad? SURELY you are not telling me that ALL metas do not sing from the same hymn sheet? ANYONE who received help from a meta editor should be welcomed with open arms surely? Because to reject an application that has received help from a high quality editor is to reject that very editor! If he/she is to be rejected, then surely they should not be editing.

Sorry but your premise of 'Ooh this applicant had help, let's reject the application', simply PROVES the fact that there is protectionalism within the DMOZ selection process.

So what is it then, are you wrong about 'too good application rejection syndrome' in which case you might well be wrong about all the rest of the stuff. OR are you RIGHT about it, by which case you have proven the very fact that there is division amongst the editors, and a conspiracy to 'control' editors?

:D

gworld

Jun 8th 2006, 11:12 am

That sounds like a great idea - of course you'd have to call it something else since that name is already taken ;)

Are you sure about that, or is it another claim like DMOZ has copyright which certainly was not true? :rolleyes:

By the way, since it has become clear that DMOZ doesn't have any copyright, isn't better to stop with DMOZ enemy list and remove the list of web sites that do not mention DMOZ "supposed" copyright instead of wasting time and adding to that list? ;)

compostannie

Jun 8th 2006, 11:35 am

isn't better to stop with DMOZ enemy list and remove the list of web sites that do not mention DMOZ "supposed" copyright
LOL, Gworld you're such a drama queen! It's not an enemy list, it's a category that contains "license agreement violators" and I don't think anyone considers any of them an enemy. :rolleyes:

brizzie

Jun 8th 2006, 11:39 am

WHY would an application having received assistance from another Meta be bad?
A meta can approve applications. Why would they write an application then not approve it? Unless there was some deception involved? Deception = bad.

Do you SERIOUSLY expect us to believe that applications are rejected because they appear to have been written by a meta editor?
No, you believe what you want. If the conspiracy theories appeal to you then go with it, it is your mental health to do with as you want.

Sorry but your premise of 'Ooh this applicant had help, let's reject the application', simply PROVES the fact that there is protectionalism within the DMOZ selection process.
There is a difference between help in terms of giving tips and hints so people don't make silly mistakes, and actually or more or less writing the application. You said "I have been party to submitted applications that were written by a meta editor" - that isn't help it is deception and of course it is right that such an application is rejected. But why would a meta write an application then not approve it himself? Let's be clear here - a meta who writes applications for others is abusive and if that has been detected it can't be a bad thing.

These conspiracy theories are hilarious, totally lacking in credibility. Do you really think it is possible for hundreds of metas from all different walks of life and different countries to all conspire over the Internet for year upon year and never once have any credible evidence exposed? Metas have been evicted for abuse themselves, metas have resigned on principle, some metas are fundamentalist puritans who are suspicious of the motivations of their own grandmothers. And in all those years not one has ever come forward and confirmed these conspiracy flights of fantasy. Not one out of hundreds, some of them pretty pissed off when they left. Why might that be?

I spent 3.5 years in DMOZ, most of that as an editall. Tens of thousands of edits crossing every branch. And not exactly known for being backward about expressing my opinions and opening cans of worms. Yet I was granted every category I applied for by a different meta every time (I think), promoted to editall and given free reign over the entire directory. If metas are protectionist then I would have been their worst nightmare yet instead of squashing me they gave me wider and wider rights. I am living proof that your conspiracy theory is pure crap.

Why do editors get declined, either to become editors or to expand their rights. Either deception, not being up to the job (can't spell, don't check their work, can't apply guidelines), or in many cases pure laziness - not reading and applying the huge amount of information freely available on how to become and expand as an editor and often coupled with arrogance.

a conspiracy to 'control' editors
Sorry, but you said you were an editor, you cannot seriously believe that :D You must know that the most independently minded of editors are those most likely to become editalls, i.e. promoted. Your theories simply do not stack up in the face of reality.

However, if you prefer your conspiracy theories then who am I to convince you otherwise. In fact my next door neighbour is an alien and my mother was a secret KGB agent though both deny it when confronted with the inescapable evidence. Who else but an alien has a weed free lawn and who else but a former KGB agent wears bright red cardigans in summer?

Is it possible that there are one or two metas gone bad who may have abused their position when it comes to editor applications? I have no doubt that there have been such meta editors. I accept entirely the possibility that there may be isolated examples of such metas still serving and not yet caught. Not even an Admin would deny that possibility. But there is a huge difference between one or two bad eggs operating in such a way as to have avoided leaving evidence sufficient to prove abuse resulting in removal, and a systematic conspiracy.

gworld

Jun 8th 2006, 11:39 am

LOL, Gworld you're such a drama queen! It's not an enemy list, it's a category that contains "license agreement violators" and I don't think anyone considers any of them an enemy. :rolleyes:

Call it, what ever you like but don't you think it is time to dispose of it since DMOZ clearly doesn't have any copyright. ;)

brizzie

Jun 8th 2006, 12:02 pm

Call it, what ever you like but don't you think it is time to dispose of it since DMOZ clearly doesn't have any copyright.
Haven't you written to the AOL legal department yet to point this out?

gworld

Jun 8th 2006, 12:27 pm

Why do editors get declined, either to become editors or to expand their rights. Either deception, not being up to the job (can't spell, don't check their work, can't apply guidelines), or in many cases pure laziness - not reading and applying the huge amount of information freely available on how to become and expand as an editor and often coupled with arrogance.
............

Is it possible that there are one or two metas gone bad who may have abused their position when it comes to editor applications? I have no doubt that there have been such meta editors. I accept entirely the possibility that there may be isolated examples of such metas still serving and not yet caught. Not even an Admin would deny that possibility. But there is a huge difference between one or two bad eggs operating in such a way as to have avoided leaving evidence sufficient to prove abuse resulting in removal, and a systematic conspiracy.

http://www.gentlemenscafe.com/alice.jpg
:rolleyes:

brizzie

Jun 8th 2006, 12:35 pm

The gworld approach to editing:
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00005TO1M.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

CReed

Jun 8th 2006, 12:36 pm

LOL, Gworld you're such a drama queen! It's not an enemy list, it's a category that contains "license agreement violators" and I don't think anyone considers any of them an enemy. :rolleyes:

Would there be another reason why this "category" isn't visible in the public directory?

brizzie

Jun 8th 2006, 12:39 pm

Would there be another reason why this "category" isn't visible in the public directory?
You wouldn't want to give a backlink and potential PR gain to a site considered a licence violator?

gworld

Jun 8th 2006, 12:42 pm

You wouldn't want to give a backlink and potential PR gain to a site considered a licence violator?

OR

You don't want to take a public stance that can be challenged in an open court and reduce the value of DMOZ to zero when it is proved in court that there is no copyright. ;)

brizzie

Jun 8th 2006, 1:14 pm

Ah, more
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1840243945.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

CReed

Jun 8th 2006, 1:22 pm

You wouldn't want to give a backlink and potential PR gain to a site considered a licence violator?

Backlink and potential PR - I'm sure you can suggest better reasons than those - I always hear editors claim that PR and backlinks are not related to, nor a concern of dmoz. :)

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 8th 2006, 1:53 pm

Sorry, but you said you were an editor, ---->snip . But there is a huge difference between one or two bad eggs operating in such a way as to have avoided leaving evidence sufficient to prove abuse resulting in removal, and a systematic conspiracy.

I never said I was an editor, I said I have seen it from both sides of the fence. I have many friends who are editors, who have shown me the sort of thing that goes on. I also never said it was sytematic. There are many editors who do a great job, in fact the nulk of editors do, but there is a core that are in it for themselves. This is the group working often together but mostly individually who are dragging it down. Multiple self pomoting inclusions, changine site descriptions of competitors or moving the site to another category, which is often condemning it to limbo hell.

If DMOZ charged for inclusion, then 90% or more of the spam would disappear overnight. How easy a solution is that? I have no problem volunteering to edit a commercial directory, hell I do just that with Skaffe.

shygirl

Jun 8th 2006, 3:38 pm

LOL, :D

Yes, you're right I was long-winded ( I was a bit drunk celebrating !) and whoever repped me with 'you are an arrogant bitch' well, I'd expect nothing less. But I do apologise, I don't partake often.

Anyway I'm completey sober tonight and have one simple comment :

If DMOZ charged for inclusion, then 90% or more of the spam would disappear overnight. How easy a solution is that?

Easy enough if you can afford it I suppose ? What happens if you can't ?

minstrel

Jun 8th 2006, 5:09 pm

You wouldn't want to give a backlink and potential PR gain to a site considered a licence violator?
But you don't have a problem giving backlinks and potential PR gain to sites promoting anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, and sucide? If people injure or kill themselves, that's okay but we'll severely punish copright violators?

There's something wrong with that picture, brizzie.

compostannie

Jun 8th 2006, 5:57 pm

we'll severely punish copright violators?
Severly? You think that's severe? :)

brizzie

Jun 8th 2006, 6:31 pm

But you don't have a problem giving backlinks and potential PR gain to sites promoting anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, and sucide? If people injure or kill themselves, that's okay but we'll severely punish copright violators?
I wouldn't personally list the self harming sites were I still an editor, and neither would most serving editors - I wouldn't be thinking about backlinks or PR in making editorial decisions (you can't think like that and edit effectively) either - I just object to them so would exercise my right not to list them. When it comes to the licence violators I merely suggest the backlink issue as being one reason for keeping them in Test and I wouldn't say that this is severe punishment. In fact licence violators don't tend to publicise their violation by submitting their site, they are usually uncovered in surfing the Internet or tales being told. So they aren't being punished at all.

Backlink and potential PR - I'm sure you can suggest better reasons than those
I can actually, thinking back to those sites I have sent to the licence violators category. You find a site you *think* violates the licence, usually by accident, rarely through a submission. You send the site to the Unreviewed section of the Licence Violators category with a detailed note of why you suspect the site of violations. Someone who knows what they are looking for in terms of proof of violation will review the site at some point. If indeed it is a violator then by definition it will not have unique content and is not listable. Therefore it should be clearly noted as such and listing it in that category sends out that message. If the site is not a violator but is a DMOZ clone then there is a public category it can be sent to for listing. If it is not a violator and is not a clone then it can be considered for regular listing. Whichever way you go there is no punishment involved - the licence violator has cloned DMOZ content, is not unique content, cannot be listed under general guidelines. An exception to the unique content rule is that clones that give attribution can be listed but only in one specific area put aside for that purpose.

minstrel

Jun 8th 2006, 6:42 pm

I think you're boxing yourself into a corner, brizzie.

brizzie

Jun 8th 2006, 7:16 pm

I think you're boxing yourself into a corner, brizzie.
I made the mistake of saying backlink as an off the cuff suggestion without thinking about the times I have sent sites to the licence violators cat ... ;) In reality the backlink theory can't work.

mirainfo

Jun 8th 2006, 7:22 pm

Hey its not as har das you think it is.

Just push your site to a reginal directory

gworld

Jun 8th 2006, 8:55 pm

I made the mistake of saying backlink as an off the cuff suggestion without thinking about the times I have sent sites to the licence violators cat ... ;) In reality the backlink theory can't work.

Don't stop, if the other fantasy excuse is also proved to be wrong, you can always make a new story. ;)

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 9th 2006, 12:42 am

Easy enough if you can afford it I suppose ? What happens if you can't ?

Sorry, I think I should explain better. I edit Skaffe Uk, people have to pay to go in Skaffe, but Bruce's vision is to create a damn fine resource as well as make money. As editors we can add sites for free, and do so all the time, some people pay, but the BULK of them are damn good sites that the editors add themselves.

I come across really good sites constantly in my every day work (Like surfing this forum). People post links to a site, I follow the link, and if it is a good site, I add it to the directory. I can add stuff for free to anywhere in Skaffe, but I can only approve it if it is a UK site. This combination of pay and for free is the perfect balance IMo. it allows editors the time to actually build a god resource, while allowing those who wish to pay the small fee to opportunity to do so.

The result is that once a section is sufficiently developed the only real option of getting in is pay. Whereas non commercial areas really never get saturated, as the sites that are built in those areas tend to be unique, as they are built through altruism rather than reward.

If the ODP is to survive then I can see no other way than for it to start making a charge for inclusion, the charge would cut the spam submissions by 70-90% overnight IMO, this would allow the editors the time initially to clean up the backlog, medium term to clean up the index, long term to put it back where it should be as the best web directory available online.

<added It wasn't I that repped you, If I ever leave rep I ALWAYS leave my name :) >

brizzie

Jun 9th 2006, 4:09 am

If the ODP is to survive then I can see no other way than for it to start making a charge for inclusion, the charge would cut the spam submissions by 70-90% overnight IMO
This has been suggested before several times for those reasons. Always rejected - it directly contravenes the charter that says that DMOZ is and will always be free. Charging would change the nature of DMOZ and impose obligations to paying "customers", webmasters cease to be suppliers of materials. I believe most editors would rather see the project close than compromise on that. But there is nothing to stop anyone taking the data to date then enhancing it with paid listings. There is an opportunity for someone.

Don't stop, if the other fantasy excuse is also proved to be wrong, you can always make a new story.
Just following your lead gworld. Except I admit when I am wrong. ;)

shygirl

Jun 9th 2006, 6:17 pm

added It wasn't I that repped you, If I ever leave rep I ALWAYS leave my name

Nah, I'm not bothered about the rep don't worry. I don't do rep myself and rarely use the CP here.
I come across really good sites constantly in my every day work (Like surfing this forum). People post links to a site, I follow the link, and if it is a good site, I add it to the directory. I can add stuff for free to anywhere in Skaffe, but I can only approve it if it is a UK site.

I do see what you're saying, but in order for that scenario to work ODP style and no disrespect, it IS a lot bigger and specialised or 'nichey' if you want to call it that.
I guess what I'm asking is where on earth you'd get editors doing informational ( NOT commercial in any way ) Kids 'weather sites' or Health ' Pregnancy Complications' type stuff. Personal examples I do admit. However, these little areas do make up a lot of the bigger picture and :

Surely those who had paid would always, always be the priority ? And if they weren't then those that had paid would be pretty pissed off that they weren't ? And quite rightly !

Start charging and you start a system of those that can and want to pay v's those that cannot or have no idea about seo ( or even care).
An online 'class system' if you want to call it that. But the editors priority would always lie with those that had paid hard cash up front to be looked at and listed first NOT with the most relevant site for the category. Thats a big problem.

I can't imagine many schools would pay for a listing, or many charity or health related non-profit sites. Which would mean they'd always come last to commercial areas and webmasters savvy enough to work Paypal etc. Skaffe may be good in what it does, but it's prorities will always lie with those that have parted with the cash. And, those that know enough to part with the cash are those out to make it... generally.

The rest would be left to languish and at the end what you have is a really nice shopping/hosting/real estate and webmaster-general directory.

but Bruce's vision is to create a damn fine resource as well as make money. That is your flaw right there unfortunately? Making money. How can you make money out of 1000's of non-commercial areas and sites who won't pay but are absolutely the most relevant to their non-commercial niche ? Your priority as an editor there is always to review hard cash sites who have waved a few dollars at you. :rolleyes:

I can see the basic flaw there in listing sites in categories ? Can't you ? :confused:

gworld

Jun 9th 2006, 6:49 pm

I can't imagine many schools would pay for a listing, or many charity or health related non-profit sites. Which would mean they'd always come last to commercial areas and webmasters savvy enough to work Paypal etc. Skaffe may be good in what it does, but it's prorities will always lie with those that have parted with the cash. And, those that know enough to part with the cash are those out to make it... generally.

The rest would be left to languish and at the end what you have is a really nice shopping/hosting/real estate and webmaster-general directory.

And how that will be any different than present situation:

American Red cross: 55 links

Amnesty International: 43 links

Green peace: 1 link

Cherry boys gay porn site: hundreds of links
Almightyzeus porn site: over 30

add to this list other porn web sites that have hundreds of links. The only difference will be if DMOZ admits to getting paid for admission then every one will have a chance to get listed, and may be an school submission that probably will stay as submission forever will also get listed, instead of being a private marketing tool for few DMOZ editors. :rolleyes:

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 10th 2006, 12:17 am

That is your flaw right there unfortunately? Making money. How can you make money out of 1000's of non-commercial areas and sites who won't pay but are absolutely the most relevant to their non-commercial niche ? Your priority as an editor there is always to review hard cash sites who have waved a few dollars at you. :rolleyes:

I can see the basic flaw there in listing sites in categories ? Can't you ? :confused:

At Last some serious sensible debate rather than just attacking each other. I have always said, I am up for being criticised, but you must put in place an alternative, if no alternative is put forward, then it is just negative crticism. :)

The way I see it, the editors who edit these non com niches, normally have a passion for it (why else would they edit for free :) ) So they themselves would know the contacts, AND be able to distinguish between the good and the bad, so they would be able to build their niches without any submissions.

To answer the money from non com areas, the answer is simple realy. People still sell to non comm areas and, as such, contextual advertising or affiliate marketing can subsidise these areas. When I said make a charge, I meant make a charge for review, not inclusion. No obligation to paying customers, other than to deal with them first over everything else. Altruistic ideals and money making CAn go hand in hand if the right balance is struck. In fact I think they need to go hand in hand, as per the example you gave earlier of Oxfam. They use a combination of paid and altruistic volunteers in their organisation, and by and large it works well.

shygirl

Jun 10th 2006, 6:04 pm

Cherry boys gay porn site: hundreds of links
Almightyzeus porn site: over 30

I've made no secret of the fact I personally think Dmoz should get rid or distance themselves from the Adult section completley. I've agreed with you many times in other specific threads dealing with these listings and that I think it's excessive and unfair to other sections. I won't repeat.

but you must put in place an alternative, if no alternative is put forward, then it is just negative crticism.

I wasn't trying to put forward an alternative at all. Just a pointing out a basic assumption from a rank and file ordinary editor ( in non-commercial categories), that if it all went commercial tomorrow.. then my loyalties, priorities and the guidelines placed upon me would change drastically.

I'd go from listing and finding relevant and informational sites ... to looking at sites who'd paid first to have their sites looked at. Even worse, I think if people were paying the directory money, as an editor in that money making entity, I'd want my cut too. Why should it all go to the owner if I'm doing the work ?

Now multiply me by 1000 wanting their cut and pretty soon you'd have to (as the owner ), concentrate on the more lucrative and commercial areas in order to pay editors like me wanting paid for the work they do. Not cheap if you're big.

QED = A commercial directory concentrating and top-heavy in commercial areas of the net. Non-commercial and the simple most relevant information to the surfer looking for it would suffer.
Basically, an overwhelming glut of HDTV/latest Mp3 player sites and a complete dearth of 'how to deal with losing a baby'/' basic cancer support in my area' sites. Why ? because editors would be too busy dealing with the HDTV stuff and the people who've paid for a review, to have any real time to concentrate on the latter non-commercial ones.

And also if there are contextual ads, adsense, banners etc and most sites paying just for a review. You don't really, honestly believe that you'd get too many volunteers just for the hell of it do you ? No, they'd be wanting paid, as I said, if the overall premise was that this directory is out to make money. I would (shrug) otherwise the owner coins it in off my work. Do you work for Skaffe for nothing when Bruce has made no secret that he's out to make a buck or two ? Why would you want to make money for someone else with nothing in return to show for it ? :eek: That doesn't make sense to me, especially if you know exactly how the web works as a webmaster. Then it's doubly puzzling that you'd edit and list only for the owner to reap the monetary gains.

Altruistic ideals and money making CAn go hand in hand if the right balance is struck.

Oxfam isn't about one thing. It's diverse and encompasses everything from the running local charity shops, political involvement for change and the logistics of supplying aid to those most in need world-wide. A huge undertaking and, yes, experts should be paid if they can help in any area of the above.

This thread however, and Dmoz/Skaffe Commercial v's Non-Commercial is simply and purely about sites getting listed in a directory and the issues ( editors and spam) that influence that listing for or against. That's it. I don't think the two things are comparable at all.

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 10th 2006, 6:35 pm

Shygirl, I wasn't being critical of you when I said about an alternative being needed. I feel you are knee jerking a little, which is the natural reaction to potential change. in non com areas, where spam is not currently a problem with free delivery, why should it became a problem when people have to pay? What , in reality will happen is that spam to commercial areas will drop, but there will still be a massive volume of spam. The fact i s thought hat less spam will be submitted, which can only result in a better resource.

gworld

Jun 10th 2006, 6:35 pm

I'd go from listing and finding relevant and informational sites ... to looking at sites who'd paid first to have their sites looked at. Even worse, I think if people were paying the directory money, as an editor in that money making entity, I'd want my cut too. Why should it all go to the owner if I'm doing the work ?

And why do you think that DMOZ is not commercial right now? Why do you think that AOL is supporting it? Is it because a company that has been involved in so many scandals and caused so much loss to simple investors is made of nice people who only think what is best for Internet? :rolleyes:

Why do you think that they try to insist on a non existence copyright that caused many editors to leave? If tomorrow they decide to sell DMOZ for a large amount of money, who is going to stop them? :rolleyes:

minstrel

Jun 10th 2006, 6:49 pm

Shygirl, I wasn't being critical of you when I said about an alternative being needed.
Don't worry about it, OWG. Shygirl takes everything personally.

shygirl

Jun 10th 2006, 7:03 pm

Yes you're soo right Minstrel I do. Thanks for pointing that out, I'm truly humbled by your wisdom..oh and piss off you S**T-Stirring loser. ;)

Back to polite discussion :

OWG, I didn't think I was knee jerking and it certainly wasn't meant to come across like that. I was only trying to explain logically and without emotion where I thought things would go if Dmoz was suddenly tomorrow part of a commercial directory that's all. As Minstrel so insultingly said, (well thats a change !). I do only speak for myself and my own views. I leave others to theirs also, no apologies for that I'm afraid.

And there is nothing at all there you could look at in my post and say, hmmm maybye at ? I did with yours especially the commercial and non working hand in hand. But I remain unconvinced that it would work.

And also you never said if Bruce paid you to edit or not ?

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 11th 2006, 3:30 am

And also you never said if Bruce paid you to edit or not ?

Nope I volunteer :)

shygirl

Jun 11th 2006, 3:34 pm

Then what a very, very nice man you are.

Bruce gets all the money then ? :confused:

And the spam thing, I think we are in danger perhaps of getting our wires crossed. When you say spam you are thinking about simple volume of sites submitted in popular categories. Hence if a charge were levied for site revision it seems automatic and very logical to you that spam would drop.

Now I have 3 concerns as an editor with this :

1) I'm not convinced charging would deterr a lot of webmasters from trying to get their site listed any way they can. Even if it is a bit 'spammy' or not a particularly useful site. The potential (perceived) "rewards" on paying this charge in terms of possible Adsense/banner ad/affiliate returns may be worth paying any charge asked for. I'm not convinced charging would automatically mean a huge reduction in submissions for review. In fact, I'd be worried it may attract even MORE submissions with the absolute guarantee of a review once the cash changes hands ? That would be very attractive to those who want a listing. So overall, no I think charging wouldn't on the whole reduce spam too much, and in fact, may even actually increase it with the added bonus of a guarenteed site review for those that pay the fee.

2) Websites refused after payment, would not be happy bunnies. A lot of time and effort would go into explaining why the site didn't make the grade, and a lot of anger towards the editors making these decsions. Even more anger almost certainly, than the current system generates. These people have paid their cash, they'd want their money's worth. Sure you can say to you're blue in the face that the cash only goes towards the editors time in reviewing, but if the review was unfavourable ? I think a lot would find that extremely hard to accept, given the high level of discontent with the free submission model at the current time.

3) Then of course there's the commercial 'editing' thing. Would editors be paid for their time ? I know you personally do it off your own back but I cannot agree that lots of others would work voluntarily in order to generate money solely for the directory owner. I think sooner or later they'd be many voices of discontent and many asking for recompense for the time they spend editing in a commercial environment. The bigger it gets and the more money that pours in, the less willing editors would be to work for nothing.

And what of those editors with their own sites to list ? Would you let them bypass the 'revision' fee ( well, they are working for nothing ). But surely would know that NOT charging them would result in exactly the same Dmoz scenario. Ie : Lots of self interested editor applications in order to list their own sites AND ALSO, with the new charges, in order to bypass the revision fee per site as well !
And if you actually do charge editors for a review for their own site(s) despite the fact they are working for you for nothing ?. Then you risk alienating the very foundation of the directory and it's commercial viability. Those that do the reviewing. You're then seen as giving nothing back to those that help and just taking all that money from volunteer work. People aren't stupid.

The more you do the commercial thing, the more problems you encounter. Simply clearing spam by charging isn't an instant and simple solution. The potential probs above I listed are only the tip of the iceberg and only the ones I see, I'm sure others have concerns.

So, no knee jerk stuff, just an opinion on what would happen. Do you disagree with any of those basic 3 points I raised ? I'd be interested in your views on them.

brizzie

Jun 11th 2006, 3:46 pm

DMOZ is about listing useful and unique information and editors use a lot of sources for that beyond submissions. Many of the useful sites are commercial. I was very happy late last year identifying and listing green energy sites - commercial but the environment is important. If there were charges for sites then editors could only list sites that paid and a lot of useful sites would never get listed. That is against DMOZ concepts.

If people paid for listings then they would expect to receive priority attention. Another basic concept is that editors edit where and when they want, not according to webmaster schedules. Try and direct DMOZ editors towards paying webmasters and it will be the quickest way to lose editors.

There are plenty of paid-for directories around. DMOZ is different and there is room for different in the marketplace. Put it up against long established paid-for directories and its inexperience will be its demise - there is no available niche there.

shygirl

Jun 11th 2006, 4:13 pm

I know Brizzie, however OWG and Minstrel seem to think I'm having knee jerk reactions and getting too personal about things.

OWG interests me, he seems open to opinion and edits elsewhere in a commercial environment for no financial gain himself. Which I find hard to understand after reading the Google Adsense/ Marketing/ Affilliate/ Buy Content/ Sell Links/ .. kind of environement here.

I for one would be very interested in what he has to say in response to the points we've made, not knee jerkingly ( and that phrase sooo does NOT conjure up images of editing to me lol )... but just observational and I do honestly feel, simple logic. I'd be interested to hear otherwise.

(P.s Minstrel, no am definitely and really, REALLY not interested in another uncalled/unasked for sarcasm and 'how witty am I' sesh from you... peddle it somewhere else away from this one, cheers luv ;) ).

brizzie

Jun 11th 2006, 4:38 pm

I know Brizzie, however OWG and Minstrel seem to think I'm having knee jerk reactions and getting too personal about things.
I was just adding to your own list ;)

gworld

Jun 11th 2006, 10:43 pm

DMOZ is about listing useful and unique information and editors use a lot of sources for that beyond submissions.

So would you like to explain, how do the editors discover 100 of links for sites like cherry boys or other porn sites that are not accessible through the home page of these sites or any other navigational menu? ;)

Many of the useful sites are commercial. I was very happy late last year identifying and listing green energy sites - commercial but the environment is important. If there were charges for sites then editors could only list sites that paid and a lot of useful sites would never get listed. That is against DMOZ concepts.

Would you like to explain what is so unique and useful in a affiliate gay porn site that according to DMOZ concept need hundreds of links while green peace only needs one link? :rolleyes:

If people paid for listings then they would expect to receive priority attention. Another basic concept is that editors edit where and when they want, not according to webmaster schedules. Try and direct DMOZ editors towards paying webmasters and it will be the quickest way to lose editors.

There are plenty of paid-for directories around. DMOZ is different and there is room for different in the marketplace. Put it up against long established paid-for directories and its inexperience will be its demise - there is no available niche there.

Are you sure they are not already paying? To put things in perspective, yahoo charges $600/ link for adults web sites, to give a porn site 100 links, it means that porn site owner had a gain of $60,000 by getting listed in DMOZ for free. What other motivation an editor can have to go and find 100 links that are hidden from public and list it while the sites that are submitted are not reviewed? :rolleyes:

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 12th 2006, 1:37 am

1) This is a possiblity, but it would mean that sites would be submitted to the correct categories if nothing else, also all the auto submissions would immediately stop. people would not be willing to pay $30 100 times, while currently they think nothing of submitting 100 spammy sites.
2) yep I agree, there will be some unhappy bunnies, there always is, again people will have to live with this.
3) The model already works with other directories. Editors not getting paid in a commercial directory. We do however have some benefits, like a skaffe blog, and free skaffe hosting etc. But I am happy with how things are there.

I did mention earlier about how it works, but will recap.

Editors CAN add sites to the index for free, in fact many do just that. the BULK of sites are free inclusions, not commercial, and there is no charge for editors adding sites, in fact we are all encouraged to do so.

I appreciate that introducing a charge will cause problems potentially, but don't you agree that as every day passes, the ODp is getting farther and farther behind in its index. I honestly can not see submissions going up if a charge is levied. Lots of people us auto submission software, and these submissions would stop overnight. Because of that the quality of submission would rise immediately.

It all boils down to one thing though, is the ODp working to an effective standard as it stands? I think most would agree that something has to be done to stop it from buckling under the sheer backlog of submissions. There is a lot of hostility against a fine instituion, and something MUST be done to deal with this. I am not saying that charging a nominal fee will cure all the ills, because it won't. But it will cut down on all the autosubmitted crap, which by itself will free up editors time. As you know it takes just as long to review a bad site as a good site. OK some sites can be rejected off the bat in the blink of an eye, but if you have 100 of these to look at, it still stops you getting to the good stuff, or adding other resources you have found.

Genie

Jun 12th 2006, 8:23 am

Another way to restrict spam is to filter submissions. Filters certainly are used by some directories. I cannot comment on what filters the ODP may or may not be using. The technical people may understand all that. I wouldn't even if they told me. And of course they are not going to release that kind of information. But I doubt if auto-submission has worked on the ODP for years.

brizzie

Jun 12th 2006, 9:34 am

So would you like to explain
No. I am not talking about Adult, that is your obsession not mine, and constitutes less than 1% of all listings.
Are you sure they are not already paying? To put things in perspective, yahoo charges $600/ link for adults web sites, to give a porn site 100 links, it means that porn site owner had a gain of $60,000 by getting listed in DMOZ for free. What other motivation an editor can have to go and find 100 links that are hidden from public and list it while the sites that are submitted are not reviewed?
If you can substantiate your claims with actual real evidence rather than speculative idle rumour then submit that evidence. If not then you are all hot air and assumptions.

gworld

Jun 12th 2006, 10:01 am

No. I am not talking about Adult, that is your obsession not mine, and constitutes less than 1% of all listings.

So you can not explain and you admit to corruption but it is OK because adult is 1% of all listings. :rolleyes:

If you can substantiate your claims with actual real evidence rather than speculative idle rumour then submit that evidence. If not then you are all hot air and assumptions.

I submitted evidence many times in this forum and in different threads which you agreed that was correct and DMOZ agreed by removing the listings after the exposure but the editor is still an editor. Great abuse control system, if public finds out about an abuse, we hide it and continue with new abusive listings instead. ;)

minstrel

Jun 12th 2006, 10:04 am

if public finds out about an abuse, we hide it and continue with new abusive listings instead

Or, just remove a word like "thinspiration" from the descriptions in the listings and no one will know what the site is really about.

gworld

Jun 12th 2006, 10:09 am

Or, just remove a word like "thinspiration" from the descriptions in the listings and no one will know what the site is really about.

That is part of the problem with DMOZ in general. The aim of DMOZ is almost never to FIX a problem, it is almost always to HIDE a problem.

compostannie

Jun 12th 2006, 10:26 am

I submitted evidence many times in this forum and in different threads which you agreed that was correct and DMOZ agreed by removing the listings after the exposure but the editor is still an editor. Not true and you know it. The editor who put those sites there was removed as editor a long time ago. Come on gworld, play fair, it gets you farther. ;)

gworld

Jun 12th 2006, 10:30 am

Not true and you know it. The editor who put those sites there was removed as editor a long time ago. Come on gworld, play fair, it gets you farther. ;)

Who are you talking about? Phone... is removed? :confused:

compostannie

Jun 12th 2006, 11:30 am

Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were talking about the pedophilia sites.

I remember you dropping hints about the phone sites but I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with you on that.

brizzie

Jun 12th 2006, 1:55 pm

Or, just remove a word like "thinspiration" from the descriptions in the listings and no one will know what the site is really about.
You're thinking cynical... thinspiration isn't a word, you cannot use it in a description. Had I still been an editor and had my attention drawn to that category I would have gone in and removed it too.

I submitted evidence many times in this forum and in different threads which you agreed that was correct and DMOZ agreed by removing the listings after the exposure but the editor is still an editor. Great abuse control system, if public finds out about an abuse, we hide it and continue with new abusive listings instead.You have submitted evidence of listings in the past that were listed by removed editors. But then you knew the abuse systems had worked already because you were an editor and could see the removals before you presented the evidence. Anyone can point to evidence of a crime when the criminal has been convicted and punished. Then you pointed at listings which complied with Adult listing practices at the time even if they did not appear to comply with policies elsewhere in the directory. I agreed that the perception of abuse existed even if no actual abuse had taken place. I believe I was reasonably vocal in support of rectifying the matter by reforming Adult listing practices.

What you have not done is present hard evidence that proves that any serving editor has favoured their own sites to the disadvantage of competitor sites. You have not presented hard evidence that any serving editor has accepted money or favours in exchange for listings. You have not presented any hard evidence that any serving editor has listed sites against accepted practice in the Adult branch. You have not presented any hard evidence of any serving editor holding multiple accounts (except your own admission). What you have presented is assumptions based on conclusions drawn from circumstances which appear suspicious but which don't constitute hard evidence. You are so fond of quoting the law on this, the law on that, the legal position on the other. Get some hard and incontrovertible evidence that would stand up to scrutiny and which is not just your skew on things and maybe just maybe you are worth listening to. Until then it is hot air, speculation, and suspicion. Which has been checked time and time again by editor after editor after editor who has found nothing whatsoever to pin a case on. All they have found is legacy listings by removed editors and listing practices which made things appear on the surface to be suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, you spin a good yarn, and do your best to make DMOZ management appear weak and ineffectual with regard to abuse. But you would be the first to scream blue murder if an editor came here and claimed they were removed unfairly, all they were doing was following what the other editors in the branch were doing. Your aim is to put DMOZ management into a no win situation no matter what they do. If you don't remove X then it is proof of high level conspiracy to support corruption. You have removed X without proper evidence and that is proof of high level conspiracy to support corruption. You have removed X but that was a sacrifice to save the high level conspiracy to support corruption and we all know X is also Y and Z. Nothing will ever satisfy you gworld so it is not surprising if all those editors who cared enough to check what you said no longer bother. And stick with the internal abuse processes that most editors trust works to eliminate those proven guilty and protect others against whom the evidence is circumstantial and no more.

gworld

Jun 12th 2006, 2:29 pm

What you have not done is present hard evidence that proves that any serving editor has favoured their own sites to the disadvantage of competitor sites. You have not presented hard evidence that any serving editor has accepted money or favours in exchange for listings.

Hard evidence according to brizzie:

1) It is not enough that multiple deep links belong to the editor, because editors can have multiple deep links for their own site.

2) It is not enough that editors competition sites will stay in submission line and will not be reviewed, editors don't have to.

3) It is not enough th show financial gain by multiple deep links in comparison to yahoo link listing which costs $600/link

4) It is not enough that these links are affiliate links that generate income for editors.

All the above are acceptable according to DMOZ management and not an abuse. If any one can have sworn statement by the abusive editor that he/she has abused the directory and have a bank statement that shows money has been transfered, then and only may be then it can be considered a hard evidence, that may be can result in editor removal. :rolleyes:

And stick with the internal abuse processes that most editors trust works to eliminate those proven guilty and protect others against whom the evidence is circumstantial and no more.

LOL, you are just so funny. Please tell us, how can editors trust a process that they have no idea about how it works. This is called FAITH and not TRUST. It is very common in cults.

brizzie

Jun 12th 2006, 3:16 pm

1) It is not enough that multiple deep links belong to the editor, because editors can have multiple deep links for their own site.
If they show no favour to their own sites and list competitor sites on an equal basis then no abuse exists provided that the branch permits deeplinking of the sort concerned. Can you prove a serving editor has done otherwise?

2) It is not enough that editors competition sites will stay in submission line and will not be reviewed, editors don't have to.
Do you have evidence of this or is it guesswork on your part? Have you examined the editing records of your suspects and identified that their listing of sites they are personally connected with is disproportionate with the listings of their competitors?

3) It is not enough th show financial gain by multiple deep links in comparison to yahoo link listing which costs $600/link
What the f*** are you talking about? What has the cost of a Yahoo link got to do with DMOZ editing practices? Isn't the value of a DMOZ listing based on Google PR as a result of a listing? And can you prove a link with Google PR that amounts to $600 per deeplink?

4) It is not enough that these links are affiliate links that generate income for editors.
Do you have hard evidence that editor X listed sites owned by themselves that contained inappropriate levels of affiliate links compared with sites they listed belonging to competitors? Or can you prove conspiracy between editor X and editor Y over such listings? Or can you prove that editor X and editor Y are the same person? Many have looked for such links based on your allegations, none have been found.

If any one can have sworn statement by the abusive editor that he/she has abused the directory and have a bank statement that shows money has been transfered
Are you suggesting editors should be removed on the basis of your assumptions, conclusions, and suspicions, with no evidence that they have treated competitor sites any less favourably than their own, without any evidence they have corruptly accepted money or favours, without any evidence that they have edited against the accepted practices of a branch, and without any evidence of conspiracy, collusion, or multiple account holding? If you want to nail a corrupt editor then you need a lot more than assumptions, conclusions, and suspicions. Bank statements and confessions would be nice but they aren't necessary if you do your homework properly.

Please tell us, how can editors trust a process that they have no idea about how it works.
By witnessing it in action.

gworld

Jun 12th 2006, 3:43 pm

By witnessing it in action.

They have witnessed and they know exactly what is all about. You should listen to what editors call the admins and Metas in PM, email and messenger. I will probably get banned, if I repeat it here. ;)

brizzie

Jun 12th 2006, 3:48 pm

They have witnessed and they know exactly what is all about. You should listen to what editors call the admins and Metas in PM, email and messenger. I will probably get banned, if I repeat it here.
Have you been talking to yourself again gworld? Those multiple accounts will send you mad in the end. ;)

gworld

Jun 12th 2006, 4:01 pm

Have you been talking to yourself again gworld? Those multiple accounts will send you mad in the end. ;)

Actually some of those editors are the same people who defend DMOZ in public. Obviously they know with all the gray areas in the guidelines, any abuse can be justified and any simple mistake can become an abuse that results in removal. It seems many editors have adopted the policy of defending DMOZ in public and only express their real opinion in private. ;)

brizzie

Jun 12th 2006, 4:26 pm

Actually some of those editors are the same people who defend DMOZ in public. Obviously they know with all the gray areas in the guidelines, any abuse can be justified and any simple mistake can become an abuse that results in removal. It seems many editors have adopted the policy of defending DMOZ in public and only express their real opinion in private.
I am not saying abuse doesn't go on. I am not saying some suspicions are not accurate. I am saying that suspicions are not good enough. Evidence is required and that sometimes takes hard work. And as in any good judicial system the suspects are innocent until proven guilty. There was a case (actually referenced in DP a while back) I investigated but in the end all I had was circumstancial evidence and when I passed it on no-one could find anything more. The editor, a crook I was certain, remained in place. I hadn't proved the case. It took a year of waiting for him to make a mistake. He did, he got nailed, he got removed, he squealed and squealed and squealed. He actually alleged I was one of his competitors - fact was I had only visited his country once, on a day trip in 1988, and had no possible connection with his industry. Catching abusers requires patience and painstaking research to build a case. Your preference for drama and half-baked conspiracy theories might get you more attention but it is ultimately self-defeating when people switch off and stop listening to anything you say.

When it comes to the practices in Adult I am on record, numerous times, in pointing out the perception of abuse that could/would/was arising with those practices relating to image gallery deeplinking. And that the only real way of eliminating that perception and creating a situation where abuse was visible and detectable is reform of those deeplinking practices. Which I am certain made me as popular as a fart in an elevator in some sectors of DMOZ. But perception is not the same as evidence and it is evidence that is required to remove an editor. And that is how it should be to prevent malicious false allegations being levelled against the innocent.

gworld

Jun 12th 2006, 7:12 pm

But perception is not the same as evidence and it is evidence that is required to remove an editor. And that is how it should be to prevent malicious false allegations being levelled against the innocent.

Editors are removed with smallest excuse if they are troublesome for Admins or Metas while abusive editors stay on year after year because there is always a new excuse in the ever gray land of guidelines that while what they have done looks and feels like corruption, it is really not abuse. :rolleyes:
DMOZ system does not protect any innocent, only the corrupt. Innocents do not need the secrecy and shadows to hide their innocence, secrecy and shadows are the best friends of the corrupts. ;)

compostannie

Jun 13th 2006, 8:01 am

Innocents do not need the secrecy and shadows to hide their innocence,
um, yes we do. I recall being accused of being a child pornographer, of having illegal sites and of using DMOZ to promote those illegal sites. Innocent DMOZ editors are easy targets of false accusations so personally I'm grateful for the secrecy.

gworld

Jun 13th 2006, 8:08 am

um, yes we do. I recall being accused of being a child pornographer, of having illegal sites and of using DMOZ to promote those illegal sites. Innocent DMOZ editors are easy targets of false accusations so personally I'm grateful for the secrecy.

I hate to break it to you but the world doesn't revolve around you. Don't you think this is getting old, it is the same kind of thing when you mentioned that I am attacking you in PM and when I posted the PM, it showed there was nothing there. You also claimed Vulcano attacked you in internal forum which we both now it is not true.
And before you mention it for 101 times again, thank you for 101 times that you reviewed those pedophile listings.

compostannie

Jun 13th 2006, 8:33 am

Of course it's getting old, thank you for noticing. ;)

When you keep bringing up the same old fallacious arguments, consistently twist the truth and claim to have given proof when all you've shown is repetition, you can't really expect anything fresh in response, can you? ;)

btw, just a reminder... we aren't done with the pedophile sites. You said you know of a lot more and I'm still waiting for your next revelation so I can go zap it. :)

Old Welsh Guy

Jun 13th 2006, 11:43 am

Even I am getting fed up of this now :)(

How about the best looking blonde from DMOZ and the best looking brunet from those against DMOZ, settle it in a professional manner with a mud or jelly wrestle?

gworld

Jun 13th 2006, 12:24 pm

Of course it's getting old, thank you for noticing. ;)

It is getting old because your post had nothing to do with my post in regard to a more open and honest handling of abuse reporting. ;)

How about the best looking blonde from DMOZ and the best looking brunet from those against DMOZ, settle it in a professional manner with a mud or jelly wrestle?

It won't work since "supposedly" every one in DMOZ is an old lady who does not know anything about computers or web. ;)

compostannie

Jun 13th 2006, 12:36 pm

It is getting old because your post had nothing to do with my post in regard to a more open and honest handling of abuse reporting.
Gosh gworld, I hate to break it to you but the world doesn't revolve around you. :D
My post certainly was about your post regarding the handling of abuse reporting. You're so cute when you get ornery, maybe you need a nap. ;)

lmocr

Jun 13th 2006, 12:57 pm

It won't work since "supposedly" every one in DMOZ is an old lady who does not know anything about computers or web. ;)Siddy's wife is sure going to be surprised to find out that he's an old lady. :D

shadow575

Jun 13th 2006, 1:13 pm

...... secrecy and shadows are the best friends of the corrupts. ;)

:eek: I don't know anyone named secrecy, and last time I checked I wasn't an old lady either ;)

gworld

Jun 13th 2006, 1:38 pm

Siddy's wife is sure going to be surprised to find out that he's an old lady. :D

I meant those "supposed" old ladies that "supposedly" don't know why the pictures are not shown in the web page and need their grand daughter help to figure it out but couple of posts later, discuss the technical side of parsing the ODP RDF file which the majority of webmasters in this forum can not manage. ;)

lmocr

Jun 13th 2006, 1:59 pm

I meant those "supposed" old ladies that "supposedly" don't know why the pictures are not shown in the web page and need their grand daughter help to figure it out but couple of posts later, discuss the technical side of parsing the ODP RDF file which the majority of webmasters in this forum can not manage. ;)Considering I'm one that had issues with pictures not showing up - (but my 18 month old granddaughter is quite the computer illiterate) - and I don't know how to parse anything - I'll have to guess that you're talking about someone else.

brizzie

Jun 13th 2006, 2:58 pm

Editors are removed with smallest excuse if they are troublesome for Admins or Metas
And your proof for this is... non-existent. It is frustratingly difficult to get rid of bad editors because of the standard of proof required. You need unanimity of metas for an editor to be removed. Let alone be able to get rid of good editors. Remember it only takes one meta to object and there is no removal, them's the rules.

Actually the proof points the other way - the most troublesome editors for Admins and Metas are Editalls. Many times as an editor I upset apple carts and (as a result of the false propaganda) expected to find my account locked out the next day. I strongly disagreed with Metas and with the (then) Editor in Chief when I felt strongly. I was promoted. That is what happens - editors who show independence of thought, whether they agree or disagree, are valued and more often than not promoted.

while abusive editors stay on year after year because there is always a new excuse in the ever gray land of guidelines that while what they have done looks and feels like corruption, it is really not abuse.
No doubt there are abusive editors who have evaded capture for a long time - it can take 6 months, a year, more, of monitoring to gather proper evidence that will convince every meta of guilt. One day the abusive editor will make a slip and they're nailed and removed. A long while back you gave a list of abusive sites and when editors went to look most of them were listed by removed editors. Isn't that proof enough for you that where the evidence exists the editor is removed?

DMOZ system does not protect any innocent, only the corrupt. Innocents do not need the secrecy and shadows to hide their innocence, secrecy and shadows are the best friends of the corrupts.
Let's say for the sake of argument that you made a slip and one of your accounts was removed. It will happen one day. In an open system the nature of your slip and how it was detected would be revealed to you. And to the world. That would enable you to avoid making that same slip again with another of your accounts, or with a new one, and give prior warning to other abusive editors about detection techniques. I can fully understand why you would want to know the hows and whys of one of your accounts being detected - your desire for openness is purely one of self-interest. If you were not an editor who had admitted abusing the directory in more than one way then your case for openness might be more credible but instead it is rather hollow. The innocent might have nothing to worry about but openness doesn't help them at all. For the guilty the end result is the same both ways - removal. So openness can only aid them in the future.

That said, when an allegation has been made against me I am more than happy to respond to it, I would rather know and face the accuser. Others are less confrontational and feel intimidated. It is also true that where false allegations have been made publicly you can detect a noticeable drop-off in the productivity of the accused editor which is neither good for the directory or the editor concerned. And if the process was open then there is a good chance that people would feel more intimidated about coming forward with a suspicion and that isn't good either.

The only argument I can see in favour of a more open process is in the instance of an innocent editor being removed. I am sure it has happened, I am sure it will again. Two things there - first (from experience) if an allegation has been made and it appears out of character for the editor but nevertheless the complaint seems on the surface to have some merit an Admin or Meta will probe the editor about their actions. Second, the removed editor can appeal, and I know of at least one successful appeal.

gworld

Jun 13th 2006, 3:23 pm

And your proof for this is... non-existent. It is frustratingly difficult to get rid of bad editors because of the standard of proof required. You need unanimity of metas for an editor to be removed. Let alone be able to get rid of good editors. Remember it only takes one meta to object and there is no removal, them's the rules.

Actually the proof points the other way - the most troublesome editors for Admins and Metas are Editalls. Many times as an editor I upset apple carts and (as a result of the false propaganda) expected to find my account locked out the next day. I strongly disagreed with Metas and with the (then) Editor in Chief when I felt strongly. I was promoted. That is what happens - editors who show independence of thought, whether they agree or disagree, are valued and more often than not promoted.

No doubt there are abusive editors who have evaded capture for a long time - it can take 6 months, a year, more, of monitoring to gather proper evidence that will convince every meta of guilt. One day the abusive editor will make a slip and they're nailed and removed. A long while back you gave a list of abusive sites and when editors went to look most of them were listed by removed editors. Isn't that proof enough for you that where the evidence exists the editor is removed?

Let's say for the sake of argument that you made a slip and one of your accounts was removed. It will happen one day. In an open system the nature of your slip and how it was detected would be revealed to you. And to the world. That would enable you to avoid making that same slip again with another of your accounts, or with a new one, and give prior warning to other abusive editors about detection techniques. I can fully understand why you would want to know the hows and whys of one of your accounts being detected - your desire for openness is purely one of self-interest. If you were not an editor who had admitted abusing the directory in more than one way then your case for openness might be more credible but instead it is rather hollow. The innocent might have nothing to worry about but openness doesn't help them at all. For the guilty the end result is the same both ways - removal. So openness can only aid them in the future.

That said, when an allegation has been made against me I am more than happy to respond to it, I would rather know and face the accuser. Others are less confrontational and feel intimidated. It is also true that where false allegations have been made publicly you can detect a noticeable drop-off in the productivity of the accused editor which is neither good for the directory or the editor concerned. And if the process was open then there is a good chance that people would feel more intimidated about coming forward with a suspicion and that isn't good either.

The only argument I can see in favour of a more open process is in the instance of an innocent editor being removed. I am sure it has happened, I am sure it will again. Two things there - first (from experience) if an allegation has been made and it appears out of character for the editor but nevertheless the complaint seems on the surface to have some merit an Admin or Meta will probe the editor about their actions. Second, the removed editor can appeal, and I know of at least one successful appeal.

Another blah, blah posting to say that everyone should trust DMOZ and Metas and they are always right. Do you really need to write so much to express such a simple message? :rolleyes:
You always post about you speaking your mind in DMOZ but have you ever thought that may be the reason they didn't care was because your desired changes are just cosmetics and nothing of substance. ;)

brizzie

Jun 13th 2006, 4:00 pm

Another blah, blah posting to say that everyone should trust DMOZ and Metas and they are always right. Do you really need to write so much to express such a simple message?
I'm not writing it for your benefit gworld but for anyone else that might be tempted to take any of your crap seriously.
You always post about you speaking your mind in DMOZ but have you ever thought that may be the reason they didn't care was because your desired changes are just cosmetics and nothing of substance.
I simply use my own experience as an example, it is one example of many but I tried to be brief. :) On the other hand you just make unsubstantiated dramatic statements with the intention of making mischief and misleading people.

Do you really need to write so much to express such a simple message?
I have a reputation to uphold. Nobody does it better and I have hard evidence of that in the form of awards. ;)

gworld

Jun 13th 2006, 4:45 pm

I'm not writing it for your benefit gworld but for anyone else that might be tempted to take any of your crap seriously.

Crap according to brizzie:

Volunteer organization must have clear procedures for volunteers to participate in decision making.

There should be an open and honest procedures for handling of abuse allegations.

There should be clear guidelines that are enforceable.

The corruption shouldn't be tolerated and there should be proper procedures that stops it.

Illegal and questionable web sites that are harmful to minors should not be advertised by listing in the directory.

:rolleyes:

crossman

Jun 13th 2006, 4:57 pm

Crap according to brizzie:

Volunteer organization must have clear procedures for volunteers to participate in decision making.

There should be an open and honest procedures for handling of abuse allegations.

There should be clear guidelines that are enforceable.

The corruption shouldn't be tolerated and there should be proper procedures that stops it.

Illegal and questionable web sites that are harmful to minors should not be advertised by listing in the directory.

Gworld you say you are against corruption, but you are giving poor advice in this thread to attempt to sneak in dmoz. You are actually showing you are for corruption.:rolleyes:

Don’t you think people who are viewing this thread who are A) corrupt and B)with illegal sites will try to use your advice you are giving them?:rolleyes:

gworld

Jun 13th 2006, 5:05 pm

Don’t you think people who are viewing this thread who are A) corrupt and B)with illegal sites will try to use your advice you are giving them?:rolleyes:

It is possible. That is the unfortunate cost of fighting a corrupt system. This will also give possibility to those who can not get in because their competition is an editor or because of stupid guideline to have a listing. It also makes it difficult for DMOZ to stop people from criticizing the directory with the treat of never listing them. Like anything else, it has positive and negative effects.
Correct the problems is DMOZ, implement a honest system and procedures and there will be no need for such things.

brizzie

Jun 13th 2006, 5:15 pm

Crap according to brizzie
I didn't say everything you post is crap gworld. Just your unsubstantiated wild allegations. What is crap according to brizzie:

Conspiracy theories with no hard evidence.
Manipulating discussion so that literally whatever the answer from one end of the spectrum to the other it somehow constitutes evidence of high level corruption.
Talking about openness and honesty whilst telling people how to abuse the directory by hijacking listed sites having admitted doing so yourself, holding multiple editor accounts, and sabotaging anything constructive that might address your concerns.
Insisting that DMOZ change its entire structure and concepts whilst failing to take note that the changes would have a detrimental effect on the listing of non-commercial sites and citing failure to take that seriously as evidence of corruption. Ignoring any and all criticism of your system.
Pointing at abusive listings and claiming it to be evidence of DMOZ failing to act on abuse whilst knowing all the time that the editors responsible had been removed for corruption long before.
Insisting DMOZ remove editors on suspicion and circumstantial evidence of abuse whilst at the same time accusing DMOZ of removing editors without proper evidence of abuse.
Asking DMOZ to reveal its abusive editor detection methods whilst not saying that such a change would enable you to hide your own tracks much better

Points 1, 3, 4, and 5 of your list that you claim I consider to be crap are commendable in my opinion. I simply disagree with you on how far DMOZ has actually gone and the ways they could be improved upon. Point 2 is worded in such a way that to disagree would appear unreasonable, i.e. a trap. The abuse procedures are clearly documented and as they stand give the benefit of the doubt to an accused editor.

crossman

Jun 13th 2006, 5:20 pm

It is possible. That is the unfortunate cost of fighting a corrupt system.
If dmoz is corrupt, how is that fighting? You can not fight fire with fire, you only grow the flames.

Correct the problems is DMOZ, implement a honest system and procedures and there will be no need for such things.
There would always be a reason for corrupt and dishonest people to do such things.

Instead of giving bad advice, why not help edit the directory? Or encourage people to join?

It also makes it difficult for DMOZ to stop people from criticizing the directory with the treat of never listing them.

So are you saying you are for corruption?

shygirl

Jun 13th 2006, 5:24 pm

Brizzie, I think perhaps we are wasting out time with Gworld and Minstrel. I in fact am getting bloody bored with the same old same old, every thread. But it won't make any difference, in fact I'd be tempted to think that they probably skip by most of our posts without reading them through properly. Even if they did, the overall impression I get is that they are way too far gone and too firmly entrenched in their suspicions about Dmoz, it's methods and it's editors to ever, ever change their minds anyway. Is it worth debating with such people who will never change their minds and will never be swayed from their beliefs. What's the point of arguing with them ?

Gworld/Minstrel, please feel free if you think that taking on board a few editor viewpoints and real life editing experiences may be a possibility someday. But you haven't given the slightest hint or conceeded the smallest detail ever for Dmoz in all the time I've been here.

I salute you Brizzie and other editors for still remaining calm and actually trying to answer their questions and respond nicely to the insults. I on the other hand am beginning to get a bit jaded by the whole thing ( ie this thread had nothing to do with peadophilia, Adult or Anorexia )... yet EVERY thread somehow almost always end up talking about the above 3 areas of concern Dmoz-wise. I've resorted to a few insults myself I'm not proud of, but honestly...I wish Gworld and Minstrel would just take a few deep breaths and a little step back now and again.

No-one else gets a chance really unfortunately and I was looking forward to chatting and exploring possibilities with OWG. However, logged on to find the thread hijacked again. I just wish you'd keep the seperate issues confined to the threads for them, but you never do and it always turns into some sort of Adult related thread regardless. It really is killing all semblance of debate here.

How about the best looking blonde from DMOZ and the best looking brunet from those against DMOZ, settle it in a professional manner with a mud or jelly wrestle?

Oh go on then !! I don't consider myself the best looking but am certainly blonde ( with a bit of help from my hairdresser recently ) , and if it distracts from Gworld/Minstrel hijacking all the threads then am only to happy to whip out my bikini an jump in a mud pool. My son used to watch WWE and I've always been tempted to do one of those flying 'body slam' things. Any takers ?

Ps. Off topic but OWG ? Is it possible as a Celt, to feel somehat 'overdosed' on the St Georges Flag and Jon Motson the last week or so, despite not considering oneself an ardent nationalist at all ? Now there's a debate and a half huh ?? :D ;)

gworld

Jun 13th 2006, 5:26 pm

Points 1, 3, 4, and 5 of your list that you claim I consider to be crap are commendable in my opinion. I simply disagree with you on how far DMOZ has actually gone and the ways they could be improved upon. Point 2 is worded in such a way that to disagree would appear unreasonable, i.e. a trap. The abuse procedures are clearly documented and as they stand give the benefit of the doubt to an accused editor.

I simply encourage people to read my postings about different listings in DMOZ and make their own judgment about "how far" DMOZ really has gone to improve the directory. :rolleyes:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=53712

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=70309

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=73698

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=67319

And many others like this. ;)

shygirl

Jun 13th 2006, 5:30 pm

See what I mean ???

Not even the thought of me in a bikini and mud wrestling will distract from Gworlds mission. :eek: I'm hurt. My cellulite isn't that bad ! :mad:

gworld

Jun 13th 2006, 5:36 pm

See what I mean ???

Not even the thought of me in a bikini and mud wrestling will distract from Gworlds mission. :eek: I'm hurt. My cellulite isn't that bad ! :mad:

I posted before noticing your post about bikini and mud wrestling. ;)

helleborine

Jun 14th 2006, 6:56 am

And since already listed sites are almost never re-reviewed unless Robozilla detects a 404, your listing is there forever...

shygirl

Jun 14th 2006, 4:47 pm

Shygirl and a Dmoz colleague debate deeplinks within the breast enhancement category. ;)

buratssky

Jun 15th 2006, 3:59 am

And since already listed sites are almost never re-reviewed unless Robozilla detects a 404, your listing is there forever...
You sound like an editor or a former editor.:D

Shygirl and a Dmoz colleague debate deeplinks within the breast enhancement category.;)
That doesn't sound quite like a shygirl and the picture doesn't represent it either. Its more of a mudgirl.:D

gworld

Jun 15th 2006, 9:19 am

You sound like an editor or a former editor.:D

It must be a former, an editor will not admit to it. ;)

How is going with your editing, are you bored yet? ;)

buratssky

Jun 15th 2006, 6:25 pm

Originally posted by gworld
How is going with your editing, are you bored yet?
Not yet. I'm doing it whenever I have the time. I will let you know when I get through that point, meanwhile I'm drinking coffee and finding some sites to add. Do you like coffee? Do you want some coffee? :D

wongsak

Jun 16th 2006, 5:17 am

:( I submit to dmoz for 3 times 3 month.Result = nothing

brizzie

Jun 16th 2006, 10:21 am

I submit to dmoz for 3 times 3 month.Result = nothing
You obviously haven't read the submission instructions. Submit once to the most appropriate category. Every time you submit again you send your site to the bottom of the pile if the editor sorts in date received order.

Some sites get listed in a week, some take years. Average is about 6 months if the site is accepted but there is a huge variation between categories.

Ajeet

Jun 16th 2006, 10:46 am

Every time you submit again you send your site to the bottom of the pile if the editor sorts in date received order.

I had heard about this "bottom of the pile thing" but assumed it was not true. Gosh, I hope that my brother-in-law (the one that does not like me) does not keep submitting my site everyday just to make sure I am not listed :D

Ajeet

PS: Kidding, I do not have a brother in law who does not like me :)

Jasonb

Aug 29th 2006, 10:31 pm

i'll have to try this, i think it will benafit greenlush.com 100%. Thanks so much

Frisna

Aug 29th 2006, 11:46 pm

I already registrasi to DMOZ but not yet in entered in direktory, what was wrong? This blog I http://bisnis-online-mulyani.blogspot.com

minstrel

Aug 30th 2006, 5:57 am

^^^^

I imagine both of you will be listed instantly. :rolleyes:

compostannie

Aug 30th 2006, 9:32 am

i'll have to try this, i think it will benafit greenlush.com 100%. Thanks so much
DMOZ requires a lot more content than you have on this site. Once you make the site worthwhile you'd be better off submitting it according to guidelines.

Trust me on this. ;)

Al Capone

Sep 7th 2006, 5:13 pm

Hey, I have a good software for scanning through dmoz for expired domains but I can't find any expired domains. I scanned exactly 49,889 domains (which only took the software I use about 3 hours) but I didn't find a single expired domain. The categories were Games and Computers that I scanned if that helps.

Is this normal for you?
What category has the most expired domains?
Does this trick even work anymore? I noticed this thread was started along time ago.

Answers to any of the above would be great.

helleborine

Sep 7th 2006, 6:00 pm

The real answer is that you are wasting your time on a rather worthless link.

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 8th 2006, 3:36 am

The categories were Games and Computers that I scanned if that helps.

Games have pretty active team and robbozilla just removed more dead links then new links listed in August. You'll have to wait a while before some link goes dead to play.

compostannie

Sep 8th 2006, 12:02 pm

Hey, I have a good software for scanning through dmoz for expired domains but I can't find any expired domains. DMOZ has software to scan for expired domains too. ;)

popotalk

Sep 8th 2006, 12:04 pm

DMOZ has software to scan for expired domains too.
Robozilla. ;)

lmocr

Sep 8th 2006, 2:52 pm

Robozilla. ;)Is one of them.

brizzie

Sep 9th 2006, 5:19 am

If you have a site listed, don't let the URL expire before renewing it as the listing will have been delisted until an editor checks the site and its registration status manually. It isn't robozilla that does the delisting as far as I remember, but it is very effective, as some appear to have discovered.

minstrel

Sep 9th 2006, 8:07 am

If you have a site listed, don't let the URL expire before renewing it as the listing will have been delisted until an editor checks the site and its registration status manually.
Good point, brizzie.

Given the high level of efficiency at DMOZ, if you don't renew that domain within at least... oh, I don't know... a year and a half?... someone at DMOZ will discover it's no longer registered and delist you. :rolleyes:

Genie

Sep 9th 2006, 9:02 am

No Minstrel - as Compostannie says, the detection and delisting systems are automated. They run pretty well constantly I think. Listings of expired domains are removed just before the final expiry date. That is why Brizzie's advice is good. Don't leave renewal until the last minute.

minstrel

Sep 9th 2006, 9:22 am

First, there are a lot of excellent reasons that have nothing to do with DMOZ for ensuring that you don't let domains expire. The main one is that if you don't protect your domains, any that have any value at all (either because of the name or because of the PR) will be grabbed up by speculators or, worse, porn sites (the latter happened to me in the 90s when I was a bit more naive).

Second, the automated DMOZ checkers are looking for 404 not found sites. If your domain is snatched by someone else and still exists but with different content, I doubt that the automated link checkers at DMOZ are going to report anything amiss.

ishfish

Sep 9th 2006, 9:56 am

Second, the automated DMOZ checkers are looking for 404 not found sites.minstrel, you really need to shut your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, the ODP does have systems in place to check for 404 sites. But why would it not have systems in place to check for expired domains as well? If your domain is snatched by someone else and still exists but with different content, I doubt that the automated link checkers at DMOZ are going to report anything amiss.Yes they will.

minstrel

Sep 9th 2006, 10:01 am

minstrel, you really need to shut your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks for the (unsolicited) personal advice. :rolleyes:

I remain unconvinced that anything automated at DMOZ is that sophisticated. Care to enlighten me on just how your automated linkcheckers can discern that a live and active link has changed content? And if they have that capability, why DMOZ is not more efficient at deleting bad links from the directory?

Genie

Sep 9th 2006, 10:21 am

I don't think that it would benefit us to explain to the world and her husband exactly how we do these things. Not with people around so keen to find a gap in the system. Do you?

gworld

Sep 9th 2006, 10:26 am

I don't think that it would benefit us to explain to the world and her husband exactly how we do these things. Not with people around so keen to find a gap in the system. Do you?

As usual you are full of it. :rolleyes:

This thread is more than 1.5 year old and DMOZ still hasn't succeed to find the domains that I bought, even when the domains show the content from the child porn thread in this forum and other web sites that discuss DMOZ problems. :rolleyes:

minstrel

Sep 9th 2006, 10:32 am

Exactly, gworld. Just more hot air and bafflegab from DMOZ.

Genie

Sep 9th 2006, 11:03 am

Once upon a time people could buy expired domains with listings in the ODP. True. In some cases a change of content would be noticed and the listing removed. But with 4 million plus listings, obviously it would be a mistake to rely on every hijacked listing being noticed by an editor or reported by some helpful user.

So a new system was adopted. This was some time ago. It has certainly been around long enough for any reasonably active editor to be aware of it. So once again, I'm afraid that GWorld is promoting a picture that bears no resemblance to the real world. The proof of that is a few posts back - a puzzled person trying to find an expired domain on the ODP and failing utterly.

brizzie

Sep 9th 2006, 11:14 am

The systems do not check for changed content if the domain registration is renewed in good time. Therefore it is possible to buy a listed domain from the owner, change the content, and the automatic systems will not spot it. However, if you allow your domain to get within a few days of expiry without renewing it a robot will remove the listing pending an editor checking it manually. Therefore if you buy an already expired domain to get a DMOZ listing you are wasting your time, it will already have been removed. There is clearly a database somewhere with domain expiry dates, which is compared on a very regular basis to listings, and an automated tool does the delisting. It is exeptionally efficient at the job it is designed to do. It would be nice if other forms of hijacking could be so easily dealt with.

Genie

Sep 9th 2006, 11:45 am

Well that was very helpful to would-be hijackers Brizzie.

brizzie

Sep 9th 2006, 11:55 am

Well that was very helpful to would-be hijackers Brizzie.
I wouldn't say so, what are they going to do with it Genie? Gworld has already given lessons in hijacking in DP and mentioned it in this thread so it is obvious it does not check changes in domain ownership and content. How it is actually done I have no idea, that was a guess, but it seems obvious to me, there wouldn't be any other way. Seems daft to me to be coy about something anyone with a couple of braincells could work out in two minutes.

helleborine

Sep 9th 2006, 11:59 am

I have to defend brizzie here, for he's preventing webmasters from wasting their time and money.

It's a lot harder for webmasters to find a listed domain that will soon expire, one that the current webmaster will want to unload - probably from a good sum of money. Surely more than the current quick-listing "bribe" value of $350, which in my opinion is a complete joke.

Given that the actual value of a DMOZ listing lies somewhere between a nickel and a dime, and the trouble involved, I doubt it's going to be a rampant problem.

gworld

Sep 9th 2006, 12:53 pm

Seems daft to me to be coy about something anyone with a couple of braincells could work out in two minutes.

For that reason, it was not obvious to Genie and you exposed something new. ;)

brizzie

Sep 9th 2006, 2:36 pm

it was not obvious to Genie and you exposed something new
It is hardly "exposing" something. Makes it sound bad. Protecting the directory against hijacking of expired domains is good. Besides it was a guess, I wasn't giving away secrets or insider knowledge since as an editall I was never party to the workings of such tools. Perhaps Genie thought I actually knew and was giving something away. But if you were making insinuations about Genie's braincells I can assure you that she is one of the most intelligent and respected people you could ever come across. More times than not internally Genie and I have been on opposite sides of debates but if the Admin roles ever did come up for election and I had a vote she would get mine.

Genie

Sep 9th 2006, 3:38 pm

Blimey! I'm overcome Brizzie. As you know I don't yearn for power though.

helleborine

Sep 9th 2006, 4:49 pm

Blimey! I'm overcome Brizzie. As you know I don't yearn for power though.
Lucky for you, Genie, Admins have no power and yield no influence, so you shouldn't let power shyness keep you from accepting the position.

brizzie

Sep 9th 2006, 6:45 pm

As you know I don't yearn for power though.
Isn't that the best kind of leader?

gworld

Sep 9th 2006, 10:55 pm

Isn't that the best kind of leader?

Yes, that is all DMOZ need to solve it's problems. Another middle aged woman as admin who will blindly support corrupt and abusive practices, no matter what. :rolleyes:

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 2:03 am

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 10th 2006, 4:34 am

My solution to the problem would be the entire removal of Adult, along with Gambling and online pharmacies, and hiving off Shopping. All commercial categories would stop accepting submissions.

Sounds great, what about Hate groups (http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Race-Ethnic-Religious_Relations/Hate/Hate_Groups/)?

In fact my manifesto (if I had one) would be a whole lot more radical than that. So just be grateful that there are no elections forecast for the Admin posts, and I wouldn't be standing if there were. In my hands the ODP would become non-commercial in every way.

But what is non-commercial today? With exception of academic and government websites and few ones which can sustain themselves from donations by some miracle everyone is else is trying to make a buck with Adsense or some other affiliate.

ReLaX

Sep 10th 2006, 4:50 am

My solution to the problem would be the entire removal of Adult, along with Gambling and online pharmacies, and hiving off Shopping. All commercial categories would stop accepting submissions. +1

Josh-H

Sep 10th 2006, 4:51 am

brizzie

Sep 10th 2006, 5:02 am

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 5:28 am

But what is non-commercial today?
Ah Ivan, you put your finger on a major problem.

The advantage of being in opposition is that I don't have to make my policies work. :D In truth there would be massive difficulties with any radical programme of change in the ODP.

Frankly I feel that Adsense has become a scourge of the Internet, though Google didn't intend it that way at all. If I had a few spare millions, I'd be tempted to create a truly non-commercial search engine, that not only didn't carry advertising itself, but didn't index sites which carry advertising. Drastic, but the only way to cut out the flood of MFA rubbish.

brizzie

Sep 10th 2006, 5:44 am

There is an interesting point here.

Non-commercial sites often carry Adsense or other advertising as a way of subsidising hosting. It enables a great deal more non-commercial material to be available on the Internet.

A business that puts advertising for its direct competitors prominently on their site has got to be either completely mad or the primary business of the site is in fact advertising revenue. Either way there is a good possibility that the content is not up to scratch.

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 6:05 am

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 10th 2006, 6:16 am

Frankly I feel that Adsense has become a scourge of the Internet, though Google didn't intend it that way at all.

OTOH if it weren't for Adsense my beautiful 1800+ pages multilanguage website would only be available at Archive.org. ;)

If I had a few spare millions, I'd be tempted to create a truly non-commercial search engine, that not only didn't carry advertising itself, but didn't index sites which carry advertising. Drastic, but the only way to cut out the flood of MFA rubbish.

That would be Wikipedia and lets see which other website exists out there and isn't academic or government... :rolleyes:

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 10th 2006, 6:24 am

I knew someone would shoot that one down. :) I'm serious though. The Net is so gigantic now, and getting bigger all the time, that I think it would actually be feasible to index only material without advertising (think Wikipedia, BBC, universities, free online texts, etc.) and still supply information on pretty well anything. Shopping sites are distinguished by other features and could be filtered out that way. Business - tricky. You could describe business sites as supplying information on the business.

You would only force MFA crew to better hide advertising and use new tricks to trick you and only hurt legitimate websites (like mine) which relay on ads to pay for hosting and other expenses since they have misfortune to live in country which PayPal doesn't cover (like me) and donations are difficult to receive thus forcing them to switch to subscription model (I planning to add it myself for people who doesn't want to see ads) which would result in removal of previously free content from public view.

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 6:28 am

I was expecting the screams of pain, Ivan. But you really don't need to worry, because I don't have a few spare millions.

Even if I did (or someone did), such an engine would not be a Google-killer. Most people would carry on using the World's favourite SE. In all seriousness, I am not the only one to see a future in which the Net is so big that specialist SEs flourish. In fact that future is half-way here. But to produce the specialist engine of my dreams would take non-profit funding. That's the stumbling block.

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 10th 2006, 7:04 am

Even if I did (or someone did), such an engine would not be a Google-killer. Most people would carry on using the World's favourite SE. In all seriousness, I am not the only one to see a future in which the Net is so big that specialist SEs flourish. In fact that future is half-way here. But to produce the specialist engine of my dreams would take non-profit funding. That's the stumbling block.

Who says Google themselves won't produce such tools in the future? They are already segregating websites based on local domains and server locations so separating content based on advertising and affiliates shouldn't be too much of a problem especially if that will get them some good deals with advertisers who would pay extra to have there sponsored links next to these great spam free search results. ;)

And there are plenty of specialists SE already but most of us don't use them since they aren't very famous although they are much more update for there particular area then Google like Pogodak which has dedicated SE for each of former Yugoslavia republic: http://www.pogodak.com/ - they don't give me much traffic but still lot more then DMOZ. :D

minstrel

Sep 10th 2006, 7:51 am

I am against corruption and abusive practices.
Now if you only recognized them when you saw them... :rolleyes:

I think it would actually be feasible to index only material without advertising (think Wikipedia, BBC, universities, free online texts, etc.) and still supply information on pretty well anything.
Once again revealing your almost total naivete and/or ignorance of what is actually out there. How about major authority sites like the Mayo Clinic, NMHA, and a long list of other charitable and non-profit or educational sites? Since their sites include advertising as a way of offsetting some of their costs, your policy would immediately eliminate their eligibility for DMOZ listing.

That would rapidly move DMOZ from outdated irrelevance to simply utter crap.

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 8:52 am

Minstrel - The debate here has moved on from fantasy about what I would do if I were in charge of Dmoz to fantasy about what I would do if I had millions i.e. create a non-commercial search engine. That's the bit where I talk about indexing, rather than listing.

Feel free to carry on attacking my dreams, but let's get clear which one is which. :D

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 9:04 am

Who says Google themselves won't produce such tools in the future?
Google is certainly producing a fine range of specialist searches, including the very useful Google Scholar and Google Book Search. But I can't see them devising a search tool that actually discriminates against their own Adsense.

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 10th 2006, 9:32 am

Google is certainly producing a fine range of specialist searches, including the very useful Google Scholar and Google Book Search. But I can't see them devising a search tool that actually discriminates against their own Adsense.

This way they would simply remove middleman and charge advertisers on there own website more since this traffic would be high quality - at lest in theory. ;)

Google could easily exempt key websites which are in Adsense or some other program but have millions of hits and rank as authority or they could only leave sites which use Adsense and remove everyone else? :D

gworld

Sep 10th 2006, 9:41 am

What daft things you do say GWorld. (sigh) Scarcely seems worth replying to such nonsense, but just in case anyone reading this really needs me to state my position - I am against corruption and abusive practices.

My solution to the problem would be the entire removal of Adult, along with Gambling and online pharmacies, and hiving off Shopping. All commercial categories would stop accepting submissions.

In fact my manifesto (if I had one) would be a whole lot more radical than that. So just be grateful that there are no elections forecast for the Admin posts, and I wouldn't be standing if there were. In my hands the ODP would become non-commercial in every way.

Is this an admittance that DMOZ at present time is filled with corruption and abuse at least in adult, gambling and pharmacy or is it, one of the politician campaign promise that always states that they want to fight corruption but after election, they can't find any corruption to fight with? :rolleyes:

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 10:18 am

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 10:20 am

They could only leave sites which use Adsense and remove everyone else?
They could, but who would use such a search tool? It would be no real improvement over the present Google main search.

gworld

Sep 10th 2006, 11:08 am

Since I'm not a meta, I don't root out abuse and have no access to the records of said rooting out. So my magnificent manifesto is based purely on the common knowledge that porn, pills and casinos are the black areas of the Web, when it comes to spamming tactics and worse. You would know more about that than me.

So let's clarify your previous statement about fighting corruption. You talk big but when it comes to reality of facing and fighting it, you are as good as present Admins in closing your eyes, pretending it doesn't exist and blindly support corruption and abuse, no matter what.

With that attitude of solid obedience, I will not be surprised to see you as Admin in the future. :rolleyes:

Genie

Sep 10th 2006, 3:20 pm

brizzie

Sep 10th 2006, 4:12 pm

Cutting out porn, pills, and casinos would remove 99%+ of all the potential for abuse and be the single most effective anti-corruption measure it is possible to take. It would also release a huge amount of anti-corruption manpower onto more productive jobs. I can't see how that is turning a blind eye or solid obedience. Sounds extremely good sense to me Genie.

minstrel

Sep 10th 2006, 4:22 pm

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 10th 2006, 4:23 pm

gworld

Sep 10th 2006, 6:46 pm

What a strange conclusion GWorld.

Surely an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Remove the tempation to cheat, lie, bribe, manipulate and so on and so forth, and the problem is solved. Do I delect a reluctance to see that happen?

No, just your reluctance in this post (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1397489&postcount=210) to admit to the problems at present time, is the sign of the things to come if one day you were an Admin.

The question was simple, do you admit to abuse and corruption problems in Adult, drugs, gambling categories in DMOZ?

Your answer was total avoidance of any answer.

Therefore, all your "big talks" is a typical of politicians rhetoric running for office on speeches and not a plan for facing the problems or desire for action. ;)

Genie

Sep 11th 2006, 2:29 am

The question was simple, do you admit to abuse and corruption problems in Adult, drugs, gambling categories in DMOZ?
1) No ODP editor has ever denied that that there are abuse and corruption issues within the ODP. You are proof of that. You have admitted abusing your position as editor. You have boasted of multiple logins. You have boasted of buying up dmoz-listed domains in order to cheat the system and advocated that others do the same - in this very thread. The thought that you are an editor (or were until recently) is sickening.

2) Further proof that we have had corrupt/abusing editors is that they get removed. The metas spend a lot of time and effort rooting these problems out. We have a system for reporting abuse. That would scarcely be necessary if there never was any abuse. All this has been said to you over and over and over and over again. Yet you seem to want to drag me into yet another turn round the houses. It gets old.

3) As I said above, I am not in a position to know for certain which areas of the ODP have suffered most from cheating, lying persons such as yourself. But the fact that you are an adult webmaster is a bit of a clue. It is a well-know fact that among the fraternity to which you belong are some of the most ruthless spammers and black-hats on the Internet. These people think nothing of illegal tactics such as hacking, or hidden malware that steals money from unwitting victims. That is not to say that there might not be a decent human being here and there who happens to be an adult webmaster, or trying to peddle pills or rip people off via online casinos. I try to keep an open mind. But these are high reward, intensely competitive areas which tempt the greedy and unscrupulous.

4) That is not to say that no abuse has ever gone on in other areas of the directory. I do not seriously think that the removal of those three areas would completely solve the problem. It would just cut out the worst of it, IMO. I repeat that I don't have statistics to prove this. It's a gut feeling.

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 11th 2006, 4:42 am

1) No ODP editor has ever denied that that there are abuse and corruption issues within the ODP. You are proof of that. You have admitted abusing your position as editor. You have boasted of multiple logins. You have boasted of buying up dmoz-listed domains in order to cheat the system and advocated that others do the same - in this very thread. The thought that you are an editor (or were until recently) is sickening.

Well if gworld is editor with multiple logins that is just another proof of how counterproductive secrecy is, with so little interaction between editors it is hard enough to uncover such actions. With little (okay a lot) more openness there would be much higher degree of interaction between editors themselves and with help from public it would be much easier to track and discover such actions.

3) As I said above, I am not in a position to know for certain which areas of the ODP have suffered most from cheating, lying persons such as yourself. But the fact that you are an adult webmaster is a bit of a clue. It is a well-know fact that among the fraternity to which you belong are some of the most ruthless spammers and black-hats on the Internet. These people think nothing of illegal tactics such as hacking, or hidden malware that steals money from unwitting victims.

Another point against secrecy, spammers are already inside DMOZ and know every trick in the book and how to cheat them so opening directory more to the public would bring them zero benefits but would make huge impact on the public opinion actually it could make them problems since it would put spotlight on them.

<Jerry Fletcher mod>
So all this secrecy might be actually part of the conspiracy to keep DMOZ out of public eye to prevent public from discovering on what is really happening in problematic categories?
</Jerry Fletcher mod>

popotalk

Sep 11th 2006, 4:55 am

Further proof that we have had corrupt/abusing editors is that they get removed.
Yeah, without due process. Worse than communism.:rolleyes:
The metas spend a lot of time and effort rooting these problems out.
It's not polite to talk with their foot in their mouth.

Genie

Sep 11th 2006, 7:03 am

So why hasn't it happened?
Changing any system is an upheaval. If the decision is made when a directory starts up that it will not list certain types of site, that is far easier than trying to change its coverage years down the line.

I notice that some of the better directories which have started up in recent years either don't list pills, porn, casino sites at all, or are very circumspect. It is in their own interests so to be, since linking to 'bad neighbourhoods' could cost them dear in Google.

minstrel

Sep 11th 2006, 7:23 am

That's a cop-out, Genie. I think you know that. It's not like this week was the first time this topic has been raised, externally OR internally. There is no will inside DMOZ to make the necessary changes. You know that as well as I do. That is the reason it hasn't changed and will not change - there are simply too many people in the inner sanctum who like DMOZ just the way it is.

gworld

Sep 11th 2006, 8:20 am

1) No ODP editor has ever denied that that there are abuse and corruption issues within the ODP. You are proof of that. You have admitted abusing your position as editor. You have boasted of multiple logins. You have boasted of buying up dmoz-listed domains in order to cheat the system and advocated that others do the same - in this very thread. The thought that you are an editor (or were until recently) is sickening.

2) Further proof that we have had corrupt/abusing editors is that they get removed. The metas spend a lot of time and effort rooting these problems out. We have a system for reporting abuse. That would scarcely be necessary if there never was any abuse. All this has been said to you over and over and over and over again. Yet you seem to want to drag me into yet another turn round the houses. It gets old.

3) As I said above, I am not in a position to know for certain which areas of the ODP have suffered most from cheating, lying persons such as yourself. But the fact that you are an adult webmaster is a bit of a clue. It is a well-know fact that among the fraternity to which you belong are some of the most ruthless spammers and black-hats on the Internet. These people think nothing of illegal tactics such as hacking, or hidden malware that steals money from unwitting victims. That is not to say that there might not be a decent human being here and there who happens to be an adult webmaster, or trying to peddle pills or rip people off via online casinos. I try to keep an open mind. But these are high reward, intensely competitive areas which tempt the greedy and unscrupulous.

4) That is not to say that no abuse has ever gone on in other areas of the directory. I do not seriously think that the removal of those three areas would completely solve the problem. It would just cut out the worst of it, IMO. I repeat that I don't have statistics to prove this. It's a gut feeling.

Did a Meta or an Admin wrote this for you? It seems it is coming directly from DMOZ excuse play book. Let's summarize your post.

"blah,blah, blah you are bad, you are corrupt. May be there is some times, small corruptions in DMOZ but the "great leader" are fighting hard against it. I don't know more and you can not turn me against my beloved masters. We can not do anything more. I pledge my solid obedience to my "great leaders" and masters."

As I said previously, I can see why you can be an Admin material. :rolleyes:

Genie

Sep 11th 2006, 9:40 am

Minstrel - I think you are saying the same thing as me, but in more censorious language. Change is difficult because people get used to the way things are. It is uncomfortable to change. It takes effort. And that's just if one person is involved. If you have thousands of people involved, it can require a gigantic effort to shift that community by the smallest degree. That's human psychology.

What makes it more difficult in this case is that reduction would be needed. Reduction is pretty well always less popular than expansion. On a personal level: move to a larger house and the family is happy. They soon spread out and fill the place. Move to a smaller house and there will be agonies over which possessions to throw/give away. For the ODP expansion has always been a major goal. So cutting out bits of the directory is painful. There will always be agonised debate, sometimes for years, before that can happen. Work has gone into those areas - many man-hours of it.

It would take a massive internal shift for the ODP to steel itself to the radical surgery I suggest. Would it be worth it? I think so. But others might feel that the upheaval is the last thing we need.

minstrel

Sep 11th 2006, 9:53 am

Change is difficult because people get used to the way things are. It is uncomfortable to change.
No. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that change is "difficult" at DMOZ because there is a significant and influential faction within DMOZ that does not WANT any change. They have their own reasons (i.e., vested interest) in keeping everything the way it is. It has nothing to do with "comfort level" or fear of change. It has everything to do with personal benefits, whether that means perceived power or financial rewards, accruing from the status quo.

Ivan Bajlo

Sep 11th 2006, 9:54 am

It would take a massive internal shift for the ODP to steel itself to the radical surgery I suggest. Would it be worth it? I think so. But others might feel that the upheaval is the last thing we need.

Well instead of doing Mao's giant leap forward lets start with small steps by isolating most problematic categories and giving all other cats breathing space. Problem categories would be left for senior editors to do whatever the hell they want with them (block submissions etc.) while the rest would get a lot more freedom of movement (easier editor approval, more public access, less witch hunts etc.) to allow them normal growth instead of being dragged down with the rest.

This should allow healthy part of DMOZ to start growing again and maybe give it some purpose again?

popotalk

Sep 11th 2006, 10:01 am

Originally posted by Genie
Reduction is pretty well always less popular than expansion.
Yes that is true. It hurts the people involve as much as the company itself but benefitting both.
On a personal level: move to a larger house and the family is happy. They soon spread out and fill the place. Move to a smaller house and there will be agonies over which possessions to throw/give away. For the ODP expansion has always been a major goal. So cutting out bits of the directory is painful. There will always be agonised debate, sometimes for years, before that can happen. Work has gone into those areas - many man-hours of it.
Sorry Genie. Like any other corrupt government in power, people in ranks would do anything to hold on.

Genie

Sep 11th 2006, 11:53 am

Vested interests certainly enter into this. Naturally the porn/pills/casinos webmasters among our editors would be totally against the removal! However they are a tiny handful now. They couldn't possibly stand against the combined weight of 7,000 editors wanting change. So we get back to the issue of the dynamics of change.

people in ranks would do anything to hold on.
But no-one would lose power or rank simply from the pruning of certain branches of the directory. A few editors who only have categories in the affected branches would be left with nothing to do. That's all.

gworld

Sep 11th 2006, 11:58 am

Vested interests certainly enter into this. Naturally the porn/pills/casinos webmasters among our editors would be totally against the removal! However they are a tiny handful now. They couldn't possibly stand against the combined weight of 7,000 editors wanting change. So we get back to the issue of the dynamics of change.

That would have been true if DMOZ was a democracy but those few corrupt editors effectively control the directory. May be you haven't noticed that many of admins always support the corrupt side of the equation. :rolleyes:

Genie

Sep 11th 2006, 12:07 pm

few corrupt editors effectively control the directory.
(sigh) Only in your twisted fantasy. None of the Admins has any affiliations in the porn/pills/casinos range. They are not corrupt. They do not support corruption. (sigh)

gworld

Sep 11th 2006, 12:10 pm

(sigh) Only in your twisted fantasy. None of the Admins has any affiliations in the porn/pills/casinos range.

How do you know? :rolleyes:

They just support it out of their goodness of their heart. I mean what better way to serve the humanity than making it possible to list illegal web sites that can involve minors, rape, torture and bestiality or help the gamblers to find casions or the drug addicts to get prescription drugs. :rolleyes:

popotalk

Sep 11th 2006, 12:43 pm

They couldn't possibly stand against the combined weight of 7,000 editors wanting change.
Pardon me Genie. But that number is innacurate. I would certainly agree with you on half.

They want change ? But they have no voice or power against the Admins and Metas. Fear of being locked out. That is why they just keep their mouth shut. I know a few.

So we get back to the issue of the dynamics of change.
This only implies to the democratic process. Unless a Marxist rule of Forced Changes.

people in ranks would do anything to hold on.
In the corrupt government they stay on. No matter what. Even if there is no branch to hold on.

brizzie

Sep 11th 2006, 12:59 pm

How do you know?
How do you know they do? Do you have documentary evidence or are you just throwing around unsubstantiated allegations again. Two add two equals seventy-six. I happen to think the DMOZ Admins would resign if they had any honour, given their complete failure to manage the project and their utterly contemptible and disgraceful behaviour over pedophile chat room listings, but there is a difference between being inept and incompetent and perhaps being toothless, and being corrupt. There is zero evidence that Admins are corrupt in any way, shape, or form, and no matter how many experienced editors might agree that they have completely mismanaged the project you will not find a single one that you could persuade that they were corrupt. Thus all you achieve through your unfounded and frankly ludicrous allegations is support for Admins from parties that would otherwise want them gone. Kinda counterproductive to your aims isn't it?

compostannie

Sep 11th 2006, 1:07 pm

Kinda counterproductive to your aims isn't it?
Brizzie, be fair. No one really knows exactly what gworld's aims are except gworld. Although he throws out plenty of clues for us, they are often contradictory. :confused:

crossman

Sep 11th 2006, 1:12 pm

Brizzie, be fair. No one really knows exactly what gworld's aims are except gworld. Although he throws out plenty of clues for us, they are often contradictory. :confused:

Gworld actually has real a aim? :rolleyes:

gworld

Sep 11th 2006, 1:14 pm

How do you know they do? Do you have documentary evidence or are you just throwing around unsubstantiated allegations again. Two add two equals seventy-six. I happen to think the DMOZ Admins would resign if they had any honour, given their complete failure to manage the project and their utterly contemptible and disgraceful behaviour over pedophile chat room listings, but there is a difference between being inept and incompetent and perhaps being toothless, and being corrupt. There is zero evidence that Admins are corrupt in any way, shape, or form, and no matter how many experienced editors might agree that they have completely mismanaged the project you will not find a single one that you could persuade that they were corrupt. Thus all you achieve through your unfounded and frankly ludicrous allegations is support for Admins from parties that would otherwise want them gone. Kinda counterproductive to your aims isn't it?

My evidence is their actions, decisions and postings in internal forum that in majority of time is in the support of corruption and abuse since I do not believe anyone can be that stupid and unaware of the result of their actions.
If you want to claim that it is not because of corruption and it is the result of total lack of intelligence, competence, courage and common sense then I can live with that since I can not present any evidence that proves you are wrong. :rolleyes:

popotalk

Sep 11th 2006, 1:20 pm

No one really knows exactly what gworld's aims are except gworld.
actually it's not exactly that. but definetely he is not involved in porn and he's far too much experienced in the web. ;)

crossman

Sep 11th 2006, 1:21 pm

My evidence is their actions, decisions and postings in internal forum
If you want to claim that it is not because of corruption and it is the result of total lack of intelligence, competence, courage and common sense then I can live with that since I can not present any evidence that proves you are wrong

Since when your way or view of what is evidence became what is officially and widely taken as what is evidence? :eek: :rolleyes: So is a editor or anyone suppose to agree with your views?

Gman you really do live in your own world :p :D

brizzie

Sep 11th 2006, 1:23 pm

There is no will inside DMOZ to make the necessary changes.
I think there are a combination of factors.

First, at least one Admin has spent quite a lot of time on building non-English Adult categories. To remove Adult branch would require unanimity of Admins not just a majority. That is unlikely to happen. It is a fault of the Admin committee system where all are equals - what should be an effective check/balance actually turns out to be a restriction on radical but positive change.

Second, if you could get unanimity of Admins you would need to get AOL permission to remove a branch as it would be a fundamental change. As I understand it the AOL position is that pornography should be represented within DMOZ and they would be unlikely to agree to abolition.

Third, there is a general culture within DMOZ that says to achieve change you need to get unanimous agreement or the status quo prevails. Thus a small group, even an individual if they are a meta, can block change permanently. Whatever the arguments there are free speechers within DMOZ who would fight abolition of Adult on the grounds that it would be censorship, even if you could somehow dismiss every vested interest.

There is a will to make changes, even (according to evidence I have) by some Admins. Not least because it is a tremendous drain on resources. The fault lies in a culture that requires consensus for change not majority or even qualified majority, as well as corporate ownership that precludes the community from truly making its own decisions and management from being accountable to the community. The only real possibility, and it is only a slight possibility, is if Admins or AOL eventually come to the conclusion that downsizing is the only way to survive, in which case Adult would be the first to go.