DMOZ Corruption according to Google

Doesn't that kind of go against the ethos of building the best possible directory if you're mass ignoring sites? I think the priority has to be to review as many as possible while using atomated processes to minimise the time the reviwers spend on mundane tasks and spam prevention.

Isn't the priority for the humans to be actually reviewing sites? The more time they can spend on the better. If you have to sacrafice some of the human background tasks in favour of more time reviewing sites and listing them isn't this a good thing. Atomating spam filtering surely has to be preferable to turning off submissions completely without notfiying anyone as you suggest.

I'm not sure that's the right way to go about things. It's a privilege being a DMOZ editor, people should be expected to put in some kind of minimum effort, especially in the busier categories. If they want to do an hour every six months then make them edit the Yak farmers in Belieze section.

 

As I have said many times in the past...show me some proof.

All of these people making these claims and allegations, but I do not see one single example. Not even a hint of proof or evidence. Nothing but disgruntled webmasters bitching that they can't get their site listed and that MUST mean corruption!

If there is any proof out there that there is widespread corruption in the ODP, I would love to see it. I don't want to be associated with a place that is that corrupt.

Show me the corruption and I will resign and apologize to all of you.

This has to be real proof though. None of this "My site is good and not listed, therefore my competitor must be an editor and is corrupt and not listing my site". I'm talking about proof that there is some sort of conspiracy and many of the top editors have multiple accounts and are corrupt.

I know that there IS corruption in the ODP. People like gworld go and get accounts at low levels and abuse the system all the time (and then come here and bitch about corruption...oh the irony (or is that hypocrisy...?)). But I have never seen ANY evidence that there is the type and level of corruption that is claimed in forums like these. So, show it to me...

 

Brizzie's list of problems and this response from MattUK are the best posts I have seen in this thread (and in DP for quite a while).

 

The way I would do it is to change the submission form to make it more time consuming and self-checking. Those who take the time to go through the process end up with a much cleaner submission far easier for editors to process. Spammers would find it painful. You could quite easily these days develop a smart submission that would go a long way to formatting titles and descriptions to meet DMOZ standards. You don't want to notify spammers you have rejected their spam as it tells them to try again and be a bit smarter next time. No-one in their right minds gives spammers any information they can avoid giving.

I don't think that occasional editors are a problem at all. As I said before 1 edit is better than no edit. And those who do minimum edits are generally in very obscure niche categories. Though editing Belize categories is quite interesting and not at all a punishment. What would be a good idea is mandatory editor training and far greater use of greenbusting (edits need to be approved by another editor but you get bigger and more interesting categories) to (a) weed out those just joining to list their own site and leave (too much pain), (b) develop and motivate editors, and (c) be able to let more applicants in because you are training them up before you let them loose. If you had 500 more motivated editors it doesn't matter if you have 6000 one a month editors.

 

That's not a bad idea - I like it

I'd ban the domain - perhaps for 6/12 months in case it gets dropped and bought by someone else

It depends how it works. I'm not familiar with the internal procedures at DMOZ so it depends on how it's organised. I was under the impression that it's one editor per category. If multiple editors are the norm then I guess this would be okay.
How about for the more general cats there is a freedom of editors between categories, so categories with larger backlogs can be cleared quicker and if a category is getting little attention it can be concentrated on by 5/6 editors until it's up to date.

Training is a great idea in theory, but in practice it could run into problems depending on how it's organised.

 

I am rather tired of these smug accusations coming from you. What is your knowledge of dmoz “corruption”? You assumed (incorrectly) that corruption was rampant within the open directory and offered a payment in exchange for listing. As a result your sites (and that of many of your clients) were permanently and irrevocably banned from the open directory. This is what makes you the expert on this alleged corruption?

And your response to being publicly caught attempting to cheat the system - you ramp up your unsubstantiated corruption claims. People like you do a disservice to honest SEOs and webmasters everywhere. Do you tell your clients what you have done to their sites? Do your say “sorry I tried to cheat the system and in the process screwed things up for your site.”

Lets assume for a minute that you are the dmoz corruption wiz like you claim and that that only way you can get your clients’ sites listed is by bribing editors. Then why would you keep banging on about corruption when you know that it will lead to getting sites banned? If true it would make you a remarkably daft individual.

Most of these nebulous claims of widespread unchecked corruption do not stand up to any intelligent scrutiny.

 

You ask for proof but no one will provide you with proof of corruption because obviously that would put the spotlight on them, the corrupt editor(s) involved, and all their sites listed or in waiting. I can honestly tell you though, I know people that have done corrupt things to get a DMOZ listing. I know people who have bribed. I even know one guy who got listed by simply agreeing to do a link exchange with an editor!

I would also add that I did not go digging for these corrupt people and their stories. They are everywhere. There are probably a dozen people online on this forum right now who have gotten listed by some scandalous means. Sidjf, all you have to do is ask around , listen to what people say, and avoid the "You are all full of bull, DMOZ isn't corrupt" kind of response. The reason the corruption exists is because almost none of the editors takes the problem seriously.

 

Oh, no! Now you've offended neb, MattUK. Whatever are we going to do?

 

You could do this by expanding the use of this greenbusting technique. Using less experienced editors to clear the clutter but requiring an experienced editor to oversee and approve the work through selective checking. At present to get wider editing rights an editor has to apply much like a new editor. And get knocked back and lose confidence too often. Training, greenbusting, and a bit of supervision would allow additional rights to be granted without the editor having to ask and risk a knock back. Confident and trained editors = boost in productivity instantly.

It would have to be online, modular, perhaps using sandboxes, with a test at the end to ensure the editor has absorbed the guidelines and knows how to review sites, format titles and descriptions, etc. Pass the test and you get your editing wings and a certificate of competency. And to add sites to the live directory.

If this makes it easier for submissions to get reviewed quickly it also greatly reduces the opportunities for corruption. Who is going to offer to pay for something they know they will get free. Conversely the difficulties webmasters have in getting their site reviewed, as at present, increases the opportunities. Much greater routine use of greenbusting also reduces the risks of corruption because it requires sites to be checked and approved by two editors.

 

There is no limit on the number of editors per category.

 

Translation: you have no proof.

I'm not saying that corruption does not exist in the ODP. I'm saying that I have never seen one single piece of evidence that points to anything even CLOSE to the level of corruption as is claimed. All I am asking for is proof.

 

I think what the others are telling you is "Just open your eyes..." (...and maybe your mind?)

As my mom always said, "There are none so blind as will not see".

 

CORRECT TRANSLATION: I haven't shown you any proof.

You know very well that the only people that could provide you with proof are the corrupt individuals. Asking this question in all the corruption threads is getting old. If you really wanted proof, I promise you....you could find it.

Sidjf, try these two things:

(1) Start a thread here (not in your name obviously) under the title "I can list you in DMOZ for $1000!" and see how many PMS you get.
(2) Start anomylously emailing DMOZ editors offering a large sum of money for a listing. See how many friendly responses you get.

I know, you know, Minstrel knows, the Pope knows, and my ten year old chihuahua knows that you will find all the proof you need there.

 

There seems to be some sort of parallel universe operating here. I have been an editor for 6 years. I have had exactly zero bribe attempts directed at me. Its hard to believe that we are talking about the same directory.

It would be nonsense to say successful bribe attempts never happened, it’s the frequency that is in question. From my perspective I hear of failed attempts with the subsequent banning of sites. I wonder for each one of these failed attempts how many attempts succeed.

Like many others, over the years I have spent a lot of time working on this directory. There is no way I would be doing this if it was a haven for unconstrained cheats and assorted scum bags.

 

Any editor or former editor of sid's rank, so that includes me, has come across corruption and abuse within DMOZ numerous times. He knows, I know, dozens of editalls I would trust totally know, what the signs are and how to uncover the proof. None of us who have been in that situation are in any doubt that corruption exists but is extremely rare amongst senior editors. Within the meta community there are too many metas who would jail their own grandmothers if they listed an inappropriate cookie recipe to give any credibility to a claim that corruption is widespread at a high level - it would be known about, they wouldn't tolerate it. Are there senior editors who are bullies? Yes. Are there senior editors who play politics? Yes. Is there incompetence at a high level in DMOZ? Oh yes. But incompetence and being able to maintain a total lack of proof of widespread corruption and multiple account holding in the senior ranks is incompatible. The proof would have come out long ago so clearly it couldn't be disputed. Are there a tiny handful of corrupt editalls and metas? Is it possible that an editall or meta has more than one account. It wouldn't surprise me but I guarantee it would be isolated.

 

Oh well

Correction, you banned my personal sites in my sig and on my server, not my clients

Having paid for a DMOZ listing more than once (the first going back over 5 years granted) I know that corruption exisits, though as I've said before that's not the main problem with the directory.

As I said, there's no way to connect me to any of my commercial client sites, differnt server, different IP different WHOIS info. I may be an idiot, but not as daft as you may think.

My clients are all good commercial sites of large bricks and mortar business. Yes they'd get listed if I submitted them, but I'd have to wait for months. Ideally if the real submission process wasn't such a mess in a lot of categories than it would save me severall hundred$ each time.

It's people like you that cause the problems within DMOZ. You have your head in the sand more concerned with trying to shot down accusations and denying any problems rather then looking at the faults and fixing them.

 

And the next day there will be half a dozen different forums with posts offering it up as proof that corruption is rampant.

 

I was an editor for 3.5 years, an editall named at the top of Regional for most of that time so good for all sorts. In that time I was offered one bribe. Via PM at Resource Zone. Worth about $100 I suppose in goods. Hardly worth risking my editall account over. Oh and plenty of beer as a thank you after the event when I sorted out a problem here or there. Never claimed though.

 

I don't believe you.

But in any case you also should know that there are people who are very, very good at investigating this sort of thing. They have dealt to people a hundred times cleverer and sneakier than you. Lairs and cheats are always caught. Sooner or later.

 

Honestly, nobody is going to give you any facts, it's a surefire way to get their site delisted and their only way into DMOZ blocked