Oh, please. How long have we been hearing those stories from DMOZ? Hint: It's years, not days or weeks. Results to date: Zero. Probability of anything changing in the future: Zero. Change is anathema to DMOZ. You know it as well as I do, so cut the crap. The entire focus of the DMOZ inner sanctum is on two things: 1. Maintain the status quo at all costs. 2. Damage control when something embarassing to DMOZ leaks out, which is about once a week. Hints for DigitalPoint posting: I know that many DMOZ editors pride themselves on being technologically challenged but try to learn how to use the Edit and/or Multiquote buttons. Shawn and his moderators hate double posting.
Its a habit of them to spam their own forums. Speaking of your forums I have some more surprises for you guys . http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=465429
Why should it be a surprise that amongst all the editors we have one is willing to allow their fellow editor postings to be quoted and miss-quoted on here. It really is not difficult to become an editor and have access to that information, its far more difficult to become an editor and spend your spare time actually editing, especially with the sort of crap that gets chucked at them from here. But why not do us all a favour and toss in one or two quotes from the meta forum, or editall forum (isn't gworld a meta by now?)
Are you stupid? This is a review from a buyer who has listed a project, bought a link in DMOZ and posted review on the seller work. Buying link in DMOZ and review of listing seller work
To get this all back on topic... From the original blog entry: Update: Having seen some of the discussion in the DMOZ forums, it looks like I was banned because I had BOOKMARKED shoemoney.com, with the simple reason of wanting to add a note to it… My god. As a DMOZ Editor you are required to disclose all your affiliations, this would include your friends domains that you have actual knowledge of… What the hell? I guess I should have been fired long before I quit. I forgot to mention that I know Ivan, and Minstrel, and CompostAnnie, and, and, and and, and I guess I'm associated with all of their sites. If bookmarks == affiliations, then there is certainly something wrong here. Maybe I'll spend some time finding the Affiliation...I mean "bookmarks" of some upper members within the project to see if I can find anything that's shady If Anyone of the bookmarked sites can place any of the editors as a "friend of a friend" of shoemoney, then I can have entire cast thrown out *evil laughter* After all, not listing affiliated sites clearly is grounds for dismissal! Though, I wonder if this entry by Robjones is breaking the confidentiality guidelines... that's certainly more information they they give internally for the removal of an editor.... or am I mistaken? Though, hehe... someone got kicked out of DMOZ for using a 'dirty word', I guess they couldn't find a category for mouth washing with soap so they just made him leave...
You really need to apply a bit of discretion to what you hear on the internet. Have you considered the possibility that not everything you hear is true? The actual requirement is here http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html Note that friends are not included. Nor are family member’s websites. Even the company you work for is not included, providing you are not involved with the website. It is really not that onerous. You are right in so far that the ODP has in the past been reluctant to embrace change. If what the editors are being presented with now is a bunch of flim flam I guess time will tell.
It may not lead to a "dismisal" - could just prevent additional privileges from being granted. If I wish to edit in a forum category but didn't note affiliates such as SEOChat and Digitalpoint (and others) as affiliates - that can be interpreted as being distrustful... and I doubt I would ever gain privileges in editing a forum category... be that as it may if I didn't denote Digitalpoint as an affiliate and desired privileges for editing in "boating" or "watercraft" the lack of an affiliate entry wouldn't likely affect much... unless a Meta determines there is a pattern of distrust - in which case keeping me put into a couple smallest cats won't affect a major part of the directory... Not really accurate - Robjones quotes are from nameless individuals... just because the ex-editor offered information in association with his editorship Robjones didn't. Additionally, any noted response to the ex-editor's revoke of privileges by the ex-editor or other editors are merely speculations... only selected Meta's have the case specifics. According to this thread title the ex-editor was banned for being associated with shoemoney or the extortion claim... and initially that is what the ex-editor claimed because in his eyes (an assumption) he did nothing wrong... course by his own admission he was associated with shoemoney.com and I "suspect" he didn't note that as an affiliate which 'could be' compounding evidence to consider for a revoke of privileges. Personally I like to give people the benefit of a doubt... but in light of all the corruption claims, extortion claims, porn claims and every other claim where speculation is evidence and conclusions are drawn based only on "someone's word" ... clearly you "ARE SUGGESTING" that DMOZ should be run with a iron fist and no exceptions. MAYBE the ex-editor deserved precisely what he got... obviously he wasn't too happy to be involved when he wanted to "make his own rules"... and others wouldn't let him.
So let me get this right. It's OK to not list your friends in affiliated sites? This leads me to believe that he was fired for putting a dirty word in the memo box. Regardless though, you showed up here fathom, I can only assume that it was you posting on his blog. Maybe IP's should be swapped between the person there claiming to be Robjones, and the real robjones. That would/should be proof enough that he was crossing the confidentiality guidelines should it not? Though, I'm unsure if adding a site to your bookmarks and then cursing in it's memo is actually "making your own rules" even if he said a "bad word".
I didn't say that either. You MUST list your affiliates but at the same time if you never request additional privileges no one is going to bother checking you out just for the sake of it.' I doubt it... given the nature of exposure I would think any editor overstepping the line would suffer the same fate. An editors bookmarks can be used for whatever they wish and are never grounds for loss of privileges -- unless you are using them as a material violation of other DMOZ guidelines... these are the only reasons for loss of privileges: Failure to comply with the editorial guidelines Inability to function well within the Open Directory community Poor editing Uncivil behavior toward submitters, other editors, or ODP Staff Violation of ODP forum and email privacy Self-promotion (such as site cooling, and title or description manipulation, and adding/promoting only one's own sites) Discriminating against or tampering with competitors' listings for the purpose of harming a competitor Spamming the directory Is it not an abuse of privileges? Isn't abuse... abuse, no matter how frivolous others not immedately involved might think it is? I see even DP has rules for uttering a "bad word" http://forums.digitalpoint.com/faq.php?faq=infractions#faq_infraction_banned If you'd figure out why it's a problem here - maybe it's a problem everywhere.
Have you been too: http://www.resource-zone.com/? Complete and total bullocks! A category listing with a "dirty word" in it.] a "cooled" site with a vulgar word] Additionally there are 388 hits for that word within DMOZ, and if there is any word more vulgar, I'd like to know what it is. If saying it in a place where the public can not see it is a violation of the rules, then how is that worse then having a category named after it? Maybe the editors responsible for such listings should all be let go.
I thought the comment was in the editor remarks not in the name/description. A public rant would certainly worthy of at least a dashboard warning. Did I read that blog entry incorrectly? Either way though, I'm unsure if using an expletive should be grounds for dismissal as it's plastered all over the adult and music categories (and likely more). Even if it was aimed at someone, as if flaming other editors is a violation, I'd like to report the admin that called me a troll for doing nothing more then wanting a means to appeal being fired (go on, read my posts, I was civil).
Q, I am not sure, but I thought I read that the dirty word was in connection to the link he added to his bookmarks. I could have been wrong about that. I agree that there is much in the Adult section, but the Adult section is not linked to on the main site and not quite so easy to accidentally happen upon if someone in general is using the directory. However, all editor's bookmarks are easy to find.
That is not the only easy place to find expletives... Society: Subcultures: Directories and Arts: Music: Bands and Artists: F to name two both have vulgar listings. And that's just for the F word. The S word and B words are scattered throughout the entire place....so I really can not imagine it being even part of the reason for getting fired, unless of course it was aimed at another member, but even then, it should not have been mentioned to begin with. *shrug*
The forum is a different entity with different rules but the editor is also banned from an editor account in RZ... so in the case of editor abuse - it's absolutely correct. In the context of your discussion... you picked the name of your website/business... now you're unhappy with it... changing the name to (example only) "Fluffys Treats" cures any distasteful after-effect on DMOZ... it's an unfortunate truth that an editor's hands are tide if you're so vulgar to purchase the term in your domain for branding value... but in an amazing feat of diversity the word has over 1000 different meanings... I suppose one could argue that the ex-editor meant shoemoney is "outta luck" or maybe he's such a good 'willy'.
LOL. Don't you ever get tired of lying? Here is the search result for the word fu*k from the DMOZ main page: DMOZ editors love vulgar words for the marketing of their own site. Domain name: thexxxarchive.com DMOZ title: Monster Co*k Fu*k DMOZ description: Close up images of a large di*k entering a shaven pus*y. Domain name: sex-4free.com DMOZ title: Sizzling Threesome Fu*k Domain name: 007absolutehardcore.com DMOZ title: Taba's Fu*k Pics Domain name: hot-girls-usa.com DMOZ title: Lesbian StrapOn Su*k n Fu*k Do you want more examples of how your posts are just lies and nonsense? I can post more if you want since there is 388 example for just the word Fu*k alone or we can try Pus*y with 1700 result.
Because they never pay for anything as long as something half-assed is available for free and no work.