The biggest fraud on the Internet - DMOZ/ODP

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

DMOZ is a good idea, but poorly implemented. Yes, right. The USSR also was a good idea, but poorly implemented. DMOZ is a corrupt idea and that is the reason we are reading stories about corruption within the ODP, not because some bad guys got into DMOZ and hijacked it. The corrupt idea brought about the corrupt culture and the corrupt culture does not tolerate decent editors. A fish is getting rotten from the head, not from the tail.

DMOZ is a small but a very accurate replica of the USSR. In the USSR people had a right for a free medical care, free education and free shelter. In exchange people agreed to relinquish freedom of choice, rule of law, right for a reasonable standard of living and agreed to the rule of the nomenclature. DMOZ is exactly that - a closed old boy’s club with the lack of transparency and public accountability and absolute intolerance to any dissenting opinion. The DMOZ club is run by the nomenclature of meta editors. The stakes are high the public accountability and transparency are low or non existent. Why ? Because it was conceived that way. Free is bad, one has to pay for everything in his or her life and demand quality for his or her money. That is why capitalism is a better alternative to anything else.

Free means ‘not enough for everyone’. Free means ‘no freedom of choice’. Free is an invitation for abuse. Because as long as something is free, someone in the nomenclature has to decide who, when and how much will get of this free stuff. The same applies to DMOZ.

I have been editing since 1999. The stories told on www.corruptdmozeditor.com are only the tip of the iceberg. Here is an example. The meta editor for my category is Aaron Larson who is a lawyer from Michigan www.a2lawyer.com . He is particularly keen on eliminating second listings. In his view a company can have only one website and one listing in one category, period. Even if the sites a company has are distinctly different, he will eliminate the second listing. DMOZ does not encourage second sites but does not prohibit them either. So, it the discretion of a meta editor what to do. Well, lets see how Aaron larson treats his own sites:

Open Directory Sites (1-5 of 5)
1. ExpertLaw - Articles on a variety of legal subjects.
— http://www.expertlaw.com/library/ Society: Law: Legal Information (2)
2. ExpertLaw - Directory of expert witnesses, litigation support services, and private investigators, also providing legal information for experts and attorneys.
— http://www.expertlaw.com/ Society: Law: Services: Directories (1)
3. ExpertLaw - Directory of expert witnesses organized by area of practice and location.
— http://www.expertlaw.com/experts/ Society: Law: Services: Expert Witnesses: Directories (1)
4. ExpertLaw - Find a private investigator or related service, by specialty and location.
— http://www.expertlaw.com/investigators/ Business: Business Services: Fire and Security: Security: Investigation: Directories (1)
5. ExpertLaw Forums - Public discussion forums on a wide range of legal issues.
— http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/ Society: Law: Legal Information: Chats and Forums (1)

Open Directory Sites (1-2 of 2)
1. Aaron Larson - Ann Arbor attorney specializing in civil litigation and appeals, as well as motion drafting services. Includes articles.
— http://www.a2lawyer.com/ Society: Law: Services: Lawyers and Law Firms: Appeals and Writs: North America: United States: Michigan (1)
2. Aaron Larson - Representing clients for civil litigation and appeals, and offering motion drafting and appellate services to attorneys. Articles on a variety of legal subjects.
— http://www.a2lawyer.com/ Regional: North America: United States: Michigan: Localities: A: Ann Arbor: Business and Economy: Legal Services: Attorneys and Law Firms (1)

The Open Directory Project is as ‘open’ as Korean Democratic People’s Republic is a ‘democracy’.

If you are editing multilevel directories with multinational responsibilities as I do, one day you are upto a surprise. You are logging in to your directory and are not able to recognize it. Everything has been changed – website descriptions have been stripped off important keywords, anchor text has been modified and, the last but not the least, one site has been introduced on the highest level (continental) with no reason whatsoever. All the changes were made by one of the meta editors and all were made just to disguise the introduction of this new website.

If you are new to DMOZ and do not know how the things are working here, you would write to the meta editor and express your concern. This is a bad move, because you most likely would get a very angry reply saying do not ever touch this website or else. Again, if you are new to DMOZ and do not understand how the things are working here, you might decide to post your concerns in the editors’ forum asking for help. This is even worse move than the first one. This is a serious mutiny in the ranks that ought to be dealt promptly and brutally. Within minutes your login is cancelled and your post in the forum is deleted.

From this point on you are nonexistent to DMOZ. You cannot communicate with DMOZ through abuse@dmoz.org and staff@dmoz.org because these addresses only accept correspondence from those who are on the approved list. Your login has been cancelled and you have been removed from the list. You could use their public abuse form, but it does not work (what a surprise). This is the point when you realize you need multiple logins to survive in the rotten place with the rotten culture like DMOZ.

I am currently editing 7 directories under different names. This is the only way to ensure that when some metascam decides to wipe me out to take in his or her friend, I will not be eliminated. I made a decision to go stealth when a friend of mine run into a problem with another meta editor Oneeye (Paul) who handles even bigger chunk of DMOZ http://dmoz.org/profiles/oneeye.html and for the argument with him my friend’s login was cancelled.

 

Yeah, well, we all know that DMOZ sucks. I got 2 sites wiped out (along with a few friend's sites) by an editor that didn't even have anything to do with the category we were listed in. I guess he either listed his own sites there, or just got a nice chunk of cash to wipe us out after being listed for over a year. Of course he can go shove his listing up his behind for all I care, I don't need DMOZ at all, I was listed there on a PR1 page and got one lousy visitor a month.

And then we get those pathetic editors over here crying "oh, we are just volunteers, most of us are honest, it is just a few bad apples that are spoiling the place", and similar BS

If people just stopped thinking that DMOZ is the end of therainbow and nothing in the world can be better than being listed there... DMOZ is pure hype and doesn't even help you being listed there.

Then people will say "oh, but there are so many dmoz clones out there, so a listing can get you many backlinks"... who cares? I don't need backlinks from lousy DMOZ clones, I can get much better backlinks by myself.

 

There is no shortage of editors listing tons of links from their own sites, and you can clearly see it here www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html

The good thing about all of this is people are starting to know that there is a problem, and more and more, the reputation of DMOZ is declining.

The system itself is based on the idea that people will "volunteer" to engage in an activity that has the potential to create huge amounts of financial profit, yet trusts they will all do what is best for the whole. I think they need to stop kidding themselves and realize the system itself is flawed from the lowest levels to the highest. Oh, and for that handful of 100% impartial editors, praise be to them.

 

WebProWorld has deleted this post twice today. That won't prevent the word getting out, of course. This is the net, after all.

 

Yeah, well, post it at WMW and it would get deleted and you would be banned... at least here we can let the world know what is happening.

What made me laugh it that the lousy editor that wiped out my category has the word "rat" in his username... couldn't of picked a better nick to use!

 

I never understood why so many people are obsessed w/ DMOZ.

 

1. because of the Google directory which (a) still exists and (b) gives at least the impression that Google values DMOZ listings; and

2. because so many DMOZ editors are so blatantly self-serving and offensive in public forums. Yes there are a couple of notable exceptions I can think of -- they've posted here at DP -- but it doesn't alter the fact that the good ones seem to be greatly out numbered by the bad. That may be a misperception caused by the fact that the obnoxious ones are much more vocal, of course, but it still leaves the question of why, if the obnoxious and corrupt ones are in the minority, the honest ones can't shut them up and get rid of them.

 

I didn't either, untill I got a link on a PR7 page. And that's a PR6 link at google.com. Forget about inbound links et cetera, 1 dmoz pr7 link (just 6 other links on that page) got me in the SERPs of all SE's, 500k+ indexed pages by Google, a lot of traffic from G and Y!, so you decide ...

a link on a sub sub sub sub page is not worth anything, a link close the the root (e.g. Top/AAA/BBB/CCC) is worth gold.

and what are these META editors controlling ??? right..

 

I understand the complaints. It's peoples' OBSESSION that I don't quite get.

 

The most I've ever done with DMOZ is submit a site then forget about it. It's just not worth worrying about.

 

I thought it would be fun to apply for editor of the kids_and_teens --> teen_life category

since i am a teenager still and work with troubled teens for a living, i know what website/information etc would interest them so i thought i might have a chance but nope they are not looking for people like me. - huess i was too honest in the app form.

maybe i should re-apply and say i know loads of teen sites that are willing to pay to be listed. think i would get the job then?

 

I think the best thing with DMOZ is to just submit and forget, concentrate on getting links from other places/get your page sorted with SEO and just get on with life.

Granted getting into dmoz is a bonous but not everything, you don't have to have a site listed to get no1 in google.

2p

JP

 

It amazes me what an editor that was caught in an act of corruption will spout off in order to get some sort of retaliation.

This is one case. He got caught, he got thrown out. Now he is bitter.

And you guys just believe him. Rather than seeing that we threw out a corrupt editor, because that wouldn't support yout theories, would it? Maybe the ODP did something GOOD by throwing this guy out - ever thought of that?

I don't know all the facts of this, but this editor started going on a rant on the internal fora before getting his editor account revoked - his "inappropriate actions" were revealed to him there, and now is using every board that will keep his posts alive to "spread his word".

One piece of evidence submitted to the fact that the ODP does deal with corruption.

Of course, if you would rather believe him than me...

 

He's already stated that he "went on a rant" to protest actions he saw in DMOZ, and that he got thrown out for doing so. His viewpoint is that his "inappropriate actions" were in making a complaint about a higher-up.

So what was his act of "corruption"? From his statements, it was the other way round: he was protesting corruption in a higher-up and was slapped around and discarded as a result of that.

 

Yeah, that was the smoke screen he threw up.

The "actions" were trying to deal with his really bad editing, and his total lack of ability to work as a team. He didn't get thrown out for going on a rant. He got thrown out by doing stuff which, if you guys knew about it, would cause threads about incompetant editors to spring up everywhere.

I have probably said more than I should, anyway, but I wanted to share with you guys at least some of the frustration from the other side.

I feel very sorry for the guy.

 

I've tried applying to various Dmoz categories as an editor many times. I have done it so many times that my application forms were near perfection. Every time I get that standard response that I was not approved and get a link to the standard reasons why someone would get declined, of course, without any human comments. I sort of see internet competition going into a different level. For example, if someone were too physicaly blow up ODP's servers (466 Ellis Street, Moutain View) than Google would drop them pretty fast wouldn't they

 

Alucard, that could be interpreted as meaning "his lack of ability to toe the party line".

I think the juxtaposition of these two comments speaks volumes. I do not understand why this so-called "Open Directory" is so closed and so adamantly opposed to being a little more open in the information it reveals to "outsiders". It seems to me that almost all of the negative press it gets could be solved by:

1. shutting down the obnoxious editors who populate RZ - and I mean getting rid of them, entirely (it's called "cleaning house" or "detoxification")
2. actually adressing the questions raised by webmasters instead of retreating behind the smokescreen of "we can't reveal that information to you"
3. giving a little feedback to webmasters and editor applicants

Hell, this is not the CIA we're talking about -- it's a directory that calls itself "open"! What the hell is the big secret?

 

the problem DMOZ is its simply a black hole.

Generate and show some stats - outstanding-approved-etc.

Splitt off a small profit center for more information nothing to do with core DMOZ and make the SEO's or whoever wants to know pay for info..

Same for filing complaints - 1£ a shot - everyone can afford that...

Its the principle of free delivery - if I want it tomorrow I have to pay..

Untill something like this happens it's hit and miss and conspiracy theories and slandering and so on just go on forever.

Expat

 

The way of the future?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1843980,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843614,00.asp

 

My use of "working as team" implies the concepts of working with others in a respectful way to develop concensus on issues. I would like to you read it as that, please. Nothing more.

Shame on you Minstrel - that's bafflegab. We have had this discussion before, and I answered it in the same way. The word "Open" in the ODP refers purely and simply to the fact that the results of the directory are available. It's laid out in the ODP Social Contract. Nothing more, nothing less. We have at least one regular poster on this forum who has taken advantage of that openness.

Minstrel, you and I both know that there is no way of removing the "negative press" (i.e. disgruntled posters to fora) as long as the ODP exists and is used by Google. There are at least some out there who "have it in" for the ODP, whatever their motivations. Making anything more transparent wouldn't really help matters - just make them worse.

You use the analogy with the CIA. I am often criticised for using an analogy with Google. Why do neither organisations publish details of exactly what they do in the interests of openness and transparency? Simple, because by being that open, they make it easy for those that want to abuse the system to take advantage of it.

Everyone is looking for an edge - knowing the inside workings of an organisation that in some way regulates what you are trying to get that edge over allows you to use that and abuse it.

Now, while I am certain that 99% of the people who saw the inner workings of the ODP wouldn't use it for their own benefits, there are some that would. And how.

Yes, there is a wall of secrecy there. It's there for a reason.

Feedback is given to applicants. When I joined the ODP I certainly didn't put in a "perfect application", but it was good enough. How does the applicant know that it is a "perfect application"? There is a positive wealth of information, both in official ODP documents and on the RZ about the sorts of things you can do to have a successful application to the ODP. It really isn't that difficult. I am amazed by the number of people who claim that it is.

The number of times I have seen someone post something that said "You told me there were enough editors in the category, so i got refused". Whereas what the message actually said (when they actually quoted it back) was that the category was too big for a starting editor, and that the suggestion was to find a smaller category in order to find their feet. They then say that they only have an interest in that one category, so aren't interested....

Now why would that be? Perhaps they only have one or more sites that they want to publish and that is their one and only interest in editing... does the ODP really need that sort of editor that badly?