why ppl care so much about DMOZ?? is it difficult to create new DMOZ

I take your bread but you can't take mine.
They talk law and enforcement of law when something is being used but would not talk law and enforcement of law for porn, bestiality, anorexia and other illegal sites. typical clap.

 

I never said you couldn't get the information some other way but 99.9% of people use the dump, a service to get the data.

I'm not sure that is true. If you use a service then even though there may be no monetary cost the service provider is entitled to impose terms and conditions and you are entering into a contract that obliges you to obey those terms.

Anyone can visit the site and browse the information, that is why the site is there. But taking the RDF download is subject to terms. If you don't like the terms then don't take the download. The fact that there are no barriers does not make it any less theft than stealing from an unlocked car.

You don't see it that way, I do. Others can make their own mind up. They can read AOL's terms and conditions and follow them, or read your opinions, and that is all they are, opinions, and follow those. It is their risk not yours.

There is a difference. DMOZ sets terms and conditions concerning use of the data it provides and offers the prospect of legal action should they wish to pursue it against transgressors. Whether you think they have a case or not, or will pursue or not, is up to you to assess with the aid of professional counsel. No-one has actually proven that DMOZ itself has actually broken any laws by linking to any site, regardless of whether the site is legal or not. It may have breached its own guidelines depending on your viewpoint, but not the law. If you think it has then it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. I don't agree with all of the guidelines (or lack thereof) pertaining to some classes of site currently listed but that isn't the same thing as DMOZ behaving illegally. Perhaps you can quote the law on the legal status of sites about anorexia to show that DMOZ is breaching its own guidelines in respect to listing those.

 

So you mean DMOZ can take legal action only against users and DMOZ cannot be sued for publishing illegal contents or if site owners don't want their site listed ?

Are you sure of this ?

So you say breaching its own guidelines meaning listing illegal sites and not following its guidelines of maximum of 2 listings per site ? This is weird. I know you told me before its complex but this is way and far out.

Then in short as explaining to a six year old DMOZ, its admin, senior editors, editors and the whole pie is a joke ? Since, current guidelines are lacking cream for pie. These guidelines are the basics to be followed by the foot soldiers and they are not compliant ? That what you mean ? Clap.

Do you like those sites listed for the general public to see. Just a straight forward answer.

monayuki

 

DMOZ can choose to take action against whomsoever it deems has transgressed its terms and conditions if it thinks it has a case. Anyone who wants to sue DMOZ is free to do so if they want to take them on and think they have a case. DMOZ could be prosecuted (not sued) if they act illegally - to my knowledge DMOZ has so far not acted illegally - linking to an illegal site is not in itself illegal. It appears a law changed this week and some linking may indeed be illegal - DMOZ will need to review things to ensure they stay legal.

DMOZ breaching its own guidelines is not illegal and whether DMOZ actually does breach its own guidelines is a matter of interpretation of said guidelines, which can be vague. Guidelines on what constitutes an "illegal site" are not crystal clear and in the majority of cases legality is a passive decision - courts determine whether a site is illegal and DMOZ will delist it. For a small number of sites DMOZ has active guidelines prohibiting them, e.g. sites with models under the age of 18 regardless of the legal status of the site. Nor is there any guideline restricting a site to a maximum of 2 listings - you have been an editor, where on earth did you get that idea from?

I wouldn't teach a 6 year old that 2 + 2 = 453. I doubt there is an editor who has ever edited who is in entire agreement with every guideline and every class of site listed. Including Admins. Doesn't make it a joke, just means people disagree, that's life.

Some are ambiguous, some are out of date, some need adding to, some need clarifying, some need being made consistent. Not all, but some. The guidelines are extensive and need some maintenance work doing on them. Is this a surprise to anyone?

The anorexia ones? I have yet to be convinced they are evidence of social irresponsibility and I have no problem with them personally. They aren't illegal. I haven't checked them all but those I did look at did not contain anything that shocked me and nothing you can't read in newspapers and books at your local library. On those sites, and I recommend you actually review them in detail before condemning them out of hand, in my personal opinion I can't see the big fuss.

You surprise me.

 

Don't tell me that. I have read other threads. Acting illegally is not only in present terms. Listing pedophiles and illegal sites is contributing already to destruction of minors in general public. Is this not an illegal action already ?

So there is no actual clear guidelines you mean. Then before wiping out an illegal site we have to have a permit and wake up the judge in the wee hours of the morning have him sign it before taking action ?

So I got it wrong that a listing for a site one in category and topical ?

Then what is there to follow. So you say when I signed up to follow them they don't even know what they are doing ? Ludacris and clap. That is why you gave me advices and left then.

Not only that Guns, Bestiality and stuff like this.

I made it until Regional and World before I spammed, disagreed or they may call it abuse for all I care. No regrets though, I am in a much better position now.

 

We established in another thread here (go search) that the act of listing a link to a site, regardless of the legality of the site, is not in itself illegal that anyone could show. That doesn't mean that I in any way condone listing sites that are illegal or which advocate or aid in the commission of serious crime and you know my position on Adult sites from internal forums. Just that linking isn't illegal (except the law changed on some linking that is misleading from this week apparently).

Unless there are specific guidelines attached to a class of sites, e.g. sites containing porn with models under 18, then the correct course of action as an editor is to report any site you suspect of being illegal to the authorities. You are not a judge so who are you to judge a webmaster guilty? Yes it is sometimes frustrating but that is the way it is.

Many sites can be listed in Regional and in a topical branch, some can only be listed in one or the other, some can also be listed in K&T, some can be listed in every World language category the site has content in, some can't be listed at all, some can be deeplinked and listed multiple times, some can be listed more than once in Regional, especially in the UK but the guidelines allow for multiple listings in any Regional country in some circumstances. Some large companies can have brand sites listed separately. Most commonly a typical average site will usually qualify for 2 listings but not every site is typical or average.

Because you disagree with a guideline does not give an editor carte blanche to ignore it. You accept it or try and change it. Do you agree with every law in your home country? Do you just ignore the ones you don't like? I posted my reasons for leaving internally and it was nothing to do with disagreeing with guidelines.

Search this forum for my views on these and others. I don't have one opinion covers all.

 

brizzie, the bottom line is that, in spite of all that wordiness, it's still all bafflegab. DMOZ should worry less about protecting its claimed "copyrights" and a lot more about doing something socially constructive and responsible.

 

If they could do something, don't you think that they would have done something more than just making an enemy list in DMOZ for the sites that use DMOZ data without copyright notice? How many are on that list?

DMOZ and AOL know that they have not a chance in this regard and that is the reason they make their revenge list of sites that should not be listed in DMOZ, instead of actually doing something.

 

In your opinion. Others can make up their own minds, assess the risks for themselves.

 

How many are in the enemy list? I noticed many sites under any of the letters in the alphabet. Don't you think that if so many sites have totally ignored AOL and DMOZ claim and nothing has happened, it is a very good indication that nothing will happen since DMOZ has no legal base for their "copyright" claim?

 

You mean the alleged license violators? How should I know, you are the editor not me. Go count and come and tell us.

In your opinion. Others can make up their own minds, assess the risks for themselves.

 

How about this "Truthfullness, Sincerity, Honesty and Care for General Public."

Where would I do that in US, UK, Philippines, Australia or Timbuktu. Where is DMOZ registered so the law of that country can apply to it.

I am not saying that. Its the editors who help the webmasters publish these sites.

So now you say that I would just keep my mouth shut whenever I order a cheeseburger and get a cracker instead ?

See this kind of things should be addressed adequately. That is what I know. By the way what is the difference of an average site and typical. A porn site and shopping site. A kids site and a business site.

How. I don't edit there. If I do I wipe out all porn. I'm good at that. I wiped out an entire World Link.

Though I am a Good Looking Filipino, I am a citizen of the United States. Yes I follow the rules. I pay taxes diligently. I don't hire illegals. And my business would not grow from small to medium size if I don't follow the law.

I never said such or did I ? In all honesty some don't like you there. Which means the truth you told me before there are JACKS in there. I know now. Hutch was the top of list. 3/4 of them are JACKS leaving 1/4 true editors. ( My inside source says Motsa is behaving properly these days. That's nice to know Motz. I know you come in here anonymously sometimes to read. Your being helpful and polite. Nice for a change and Good for You.)

 

What has that to do with legality? Wouldn't that eliminate 99% of Corporate USA?

If the site is illegal then report it to the authorities where the site is owned or hosted. If DMOZ is doing something illegal then report it to the US authorities. Easy.

If you object to any website an editor is not obliged to review or list it. Does not give you the right to reject it. If you listed sites you found personally abhorrent then more fool you.

It is all there in the guidelines and internal forums. Porn represents less than 0.5% of listings. Shopping about 2%. Both branches have particular listing practices that impact on the number of listings a webmaster can expect.

You debate change in internal threads. You may not always be thanked for raising a matter but c'est la vie.

But you think it is OK to selectively ignore DMOZ guidelines? If you don't like a guideline you debate changing it or you accept it. Or you can choose not to list sites you object to. You don't just ignore the guideline and make up your own.

Yet again you surprise me - opening cans of worms was my speciality and that is never going to win any popularity contests.

I don't know what a Jack is so I doubt I used that term but DMOZ is a cross section of society, you'll find all sorts there, probably in the same proportions as in society as a whole. Both hutch and motsa can have an abrasive style but they are both excellent editors whose integrity I would never challenge. When it comes to mentoring new editors you can't get better than motsa and I speak from personal experience.

 

It would appear that's exactly what DMOZ Adult did...

 

If most DMOZ editors would just be honest, sincere, truthfull and CARING then illegal sites would find it hard to be listed.

Then DMOZ is covered by US law. Easy.

Then I was right.

Since porn as you say represents 0.5% of listings then why is there so much problem than the 2%.

Against the JACK'S? If I was in 1945 Japan I sign to be a kamikaze pilot instead. and next time I order a cheesburger then served with a salted cracker, I'll just keep my mouth shut. c'est la vie.

That is why I said 3/4 of the population are JACK'S.