1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by dvduval, Jun 16, 2006.

  1. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #41
    LOL, is there any problem in DMOZ that you don't blame me for it? ;)

    According to you, there is no problem with corruption, lack of open and honest procedures for listings or abuse handling and listing of illegal and questionable sites, the only problem is that gworld is making the public aware of the problems. :rolleyes:

    Don't you think that Admins and Metas also have some responsibility for the disaster that they have create it? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  2. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #42
    I am not sure that I see having issues with 0.00005% of listings as being a disaster. And that includes legal sites amongst dvduval's list. I see a potential quality control problem that should be looked at and cleared up if guidelines have been breached. Hardly a disaster.

    I don't deny the existence of corruption, no-one does, but is isn't the mafia either. Corruption is not widespread nor the norm at any level of DMOZ. There are open and honest procedures for listings, and abuse handling is dealt with effectively. You skate over the fact that every editing action every editor takes is fully logged and available to every other editor from the one that joined today to the one there at the outset. I don't say there is no issue with the listing of illegal sites either, I just don't think you, gworld, are the appropriate judicial authority.
     
    brizzie, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  3. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #43
    That's irrelevant. It's a total abdication of social conscience and social responsibility to promote and endorse such sites.

    We've been around this issue before. If DMOZ is listing those sites and DMOZ has a policy of human editing and weeding out lower quality sites, then DMOZ definitely IS endorsing and promoting those sites, like it or not. You are deluding yourself if you think that's not true.

    I don't think that's necessary. I can't imagine anyone with any sense of social responsibility calling those "quality" sites, can you?

    Also previously addressed. Even if people don't know DMOZ lists those sites, DMOZ is helping to promote them via increased "popularity" in search engines. To deny that is also delusional. And gworld is pointing out a problem - DMOZ is the one promoting the sites.
     
    minstrel, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  4. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #44
    So what are you saying? :rolleyes:

    The site states that it is about bestiality, the description in DMOZ says bestiality, State laws that was quoted by me previously in another thread, clearly states that bestiality is illegal and from all the above, you draw conclusion that gworld is not appropriate judicial authority and the sites are not illegal and should be listed in DMOZ. Care to explain how do you come to these enlightening conclusions? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  5. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #45
    I think it's clear that brizzie is running out of rational defenses for DMOZ policy.
     
    minstrel, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  6. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #46
    Dvduval mentioned them in his list - I asked the question has DMOZ actually listed rape videos - it is relevant if the accusation is being made.
    This isn't mainstream stuff by a hell of a distance. I can see the arguments that with pro-anorexia sites that a DMOZ listing might well constitute some kind of endorsement of the content for someone vulnerable. DMOZ has a disclaimer saying specifically that it doesn't, and I looked at the content of those sites and found nothing that wasn't actually common knowledge in most instances. No-one can possibly imagine a circumstance where someone looks for a shit eating site, the only way they would find them, and because there are three listed in DMOZ thinks it must be OK to eat shit because DMOZ lists such sites.

    Sticking to the legal stuff, fetishes and BDSM are not that uncommon - don't appeal to me personally and I can't say I would judge them "quality" but for those interested they may be "quality" as far as the subject matter is concerned. Who knows, I'm not going to make that judgement because I'm not going to look at them and even if I paid my subscriptions and did I would have no benchmark to judge them against.

    These are highly niche markets - the sparse quantity of sites listed by DMOZ demonstrates that. A DMOZ listing is not going to increase their popularity unless someone is actually searching for that particular niche in the first place. Again no-one can possibly say that by listing sites on eating shit that DMOZ is implying that you should cook some up for your supper.
     
    brizzie, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  7. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #47
    I think that happened awhile back, lately the only thing that he posts in response to any critic of DMOZ is: "it is gworld fault". :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  8. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #48
    Your other dubious arguments aside (I've already laid out in detail why you're wrong about them and about why whether it's a pro-anorexia site or a pro-pedophilia site is irrelevant), this one betrays a lack of knowledge of "popularity" as it pertains to search engines. The smaller the niche, the greater the influence of a single link to the site/page. This would be especially true if the site providing the link is considered by Google or another SE as "authoritative", which many DMOZ editors have tried to claim and which, sadly, may be true.
     
    minstrel, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  9. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #49
    You have a tendency to interpret laws selectively according to whatever point you want to make without taking the actual content of the site in question into account. If a site actually contains bestiality, and if that content is clearly illegal according to the law, not according to gworld's interpretation of said law, then IMO it should be removed. Many years ago I was assigned to an office where we had to view videos of this sort of material with a view to collecting evidence for seizure / destruction / prosecution. Obviously to do that I had to have some knowledge of indecency and obscenity laws but you could never second-guess what a prosecutor would make of what appeared clear evidence, let alone what a judge would say.
     
    brizzie, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  10. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #50
    OK, I'll accept what you say. But I still don't see the problem. You have to be into shit eating to want to find a site on shit eating and if a DMOZ listing says this site is about shit eating then so what? A DMOZ listing is not going to promote a shit eating site as an alternative to someone looking for a burger recipe. It is only going to tell the individual already looking for a site in that niche that the site is indeed of that niche. If you never ever want to eat shit then you are never ever going to find the site as a result of a DMOZ listing at least.
     
    brizzie, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  11. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #51
    So a site says that it is about bestiality, DMOZ description states that it is about bestiality and market this site in that section but in your opinion it is possible that it is not about bestiality and in reality it is about Casserole recipes and it is only my interpretation that makes it about bestiality. :rolleyes:
    Lets not forget your other point of law that while these sites are illegal, may be they are not illegal in Timbuktu and therefore should be listed and of course you can add that gworld is not an authoritative source about the laws of Timbuktu and it should be decided by a judge in that country. ;)


    You can be right, may be the category is not about literally eating shit and only a suggestion from senior editors to former editors. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  12. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #52
    You are of course correct that some sites containing material illegal in the USA may not actually be illegal because they are located in a country where the activity is not illegal. Which is why it is important IMO for DMOZ to be more specific about what not listing "illegal" sites actually means. Personally I think that should cover beastiality and necrophilia as well as rape, since they will be more or less universal. But it would take the DMOZ Admins to confirm that position. Why don't you post the question in an internal forum?

    There is far more shit here than there ever was inside DMOZ. ;)
     
    brizzie, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  13. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #53
    Well, I have heard that DMOZ lists a bunch of shit sites, but now we can all confirm it be true. ;)

    I still haven't heard anything about my suggestion to have 3-5 editors required to add a new adult site. This would add some credibility to the idea that DMOZ is doing their best to insure social and legal responsibility.

    To make matters worse, it seems that google is actually profitting from the listing of extreme sex sites (adwords):
    Fisting
    Shit Eating
    Gang Rape (true.com seems to be bidding on this keyword)
    Horse Sex
    Smothering

    Even if there is some justification to say that all of this content is perfectly fine to list in DMOZ and Google, I will in turn say that it is perfectly fine to let others know what is being listed and who is doing it. If you are going to expect to be able to list anything you like on DMOZ, then you should plan to be ready to deal with objections from people, and that is exactly what this thread is about, and it is clear that those who support this content being listed are in the minority.
     
    dvduval, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #54
    Because as I mentioned in anther thread, it has been already answered by an admin in child porn thread that the applicable laws are the laws of USA but then all the same old excuses start again when anybody starts to speak against other illegal sites such as lack of 2257, bestiality,... ;)
    What would you expect when a Meta in internal forum, openly encourages the editors to break the US federal laws? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  15. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #55
    Those were Google directory listings I just clicked on to see what dvduval was talking about.

    Google lists them, and in far, FAR more mulitple's than Dmoz can ever hope in basic searches of the same words.

    No beef with them then I take it ? Morally ?
     
    shygirl, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  16. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #56
    Actually, if you check some of the terms I listed in my first post, you will see that google is actively not allowing certain keywords to be used in Adwords (ex. forced sex). Unfortunately, it seems the case here is that google is not aware of all of them.

    I see you joined in the middle of the discussion, so it might be good if you started with these questions:

    If you are contemplating submitting your quality site to DMOZ, how do you feel about having your site listed with the above? As a follow up, what if your site was listed on the same page as the above versus the same site?

    If you were an editor, what would you think about a troubled person viewing the above information? Would it help them understand their problems better? Or could it lead to more destructive behavior?

    Which of the above would you personally find helpful? Which of the above would you recommend to your friends?

    Do you feel the above help DMOZ to be a better resource?

    Do you feel DMOZ would be a better resource if the above were not included in DMOZ? And as a follow up, do you think a majority of people would agree with your opinion?
     
    dvduval, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  17. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #57
    Google is a search engine. DMOZ is a directory. Google has no claim that they list "quality and unique" content or their listings has the seal of human approved listings. For Google, it is a bot that visits the site and index the content while DMOZ advertises these sites by telling people that their editors have approved these contents.
     
    gworld, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  18. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #58
    Ok you two I'm answeing.

    Oh and I never join in the middle of a discussion without reading from the start and I've followed this one, like I did with your last post obout Child Porn.

    Good for them. But Adwords is not what you were discussing was it and Google will still throw up 1000's of these sites in ordinary searches when typed in as a surfer.

    Sure, I'll start with your questions D.

    It wouldn't be if it was in Cancer research, or Premature Baby support groups . Why would it be anywhere near this ? And no, it certainly wouldn't be listed on the same page. You're dreaming.
    If I'm looking for Cancer Support it is highly unlikely 'Shit Eating' would come up in the same search in any search engine or directory. :confused: Why would you think it would unless it was a completely crap search engine/directory ? So no, I wouldn't be too worried about coming up on the same page.. really. Neither would you if you were honest about your PHPlinks thing. It's hardly likely to be listed or come up in Bestiality searches now is it ? Google or Dmoz wise. Are you worried it will ?

    If I was drawn towards Shit eating, I'd type it into Google probably or MSN/Yahoo. Most surfers in the main being unaware of Dmoz, much less the Adult section of it TBH. You flatter the ODP I think in your percieved 'all encompassing 'hold on site listings. I think you should be looking elsewhere to those that list these sites for 'troubled individuals'. Google is far more likely a starting point for these troubled persons than Dmoz. And be honest with yourself. It is, and no bones about it. You want 'smothering' then type it into Google.

    Yes I would recommend Dmoz actually for useful sites. Not for bestiality perhaps. But if they needed a useful site or a support forum then yes, unhesitatingly.
    None of my friends has confessed being into Horse sex as yet. And if they did I think I'd probably be more likely to point them to Minstrel's sites rather than Dmoz.

    You have obviously skipped past my own posts. I think Dmoz should get rid of all Adult areas.

    But morally, and that IS what you're taking a stand on here. As long as there are listed 1000 fold in ordinary Google, MSN/Yahoo searches, then I am forced to conclude that it's Dmoz and Dmoz alone you have a problem with and their paltry 4 or 5 sites in each section.

    If you have a problem with these sites then you have a problem with them being listed anywhere. If you don't have a problem with Google listing them then you are only out to try and discredit Dmoz in any way you can.

    To Recap and if you would be so kind to answer my questions like I did for you :

    1) You have a problem with these sites being available to the general public.

    OR

    2) You have a problem with these sites being available to the general public within Dmoz and only Dmoz.

    Now which is it and why ? MORALLY !!!!???
     
    shygirl, Jun 17, 2006 IP
    sidjf likes this.
  19. nebuchadrezzar

    nebuchadrezzar Peon

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #59
    Ah I see what you are misunderstanding. The ODP is a directory; in directories they put similar sites together. Unless (for example) shygirl has a poop eating site then her site will not be put with other poop eating sites. This is pretty basic stuff David.
     
    nebuchadrezzar, Jun 17, 2006 IP
  20. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #60
    Don't be ridiculous.

    1. If you are talking about the Google Directory, I know you understand that's a DMOZ feed so any criticisms of the Google Directory are by definition criticisms of DMOZ and vice versa.

    2. If you are talking about Google's search engine, that's an entirely different set of issues. Google aims to index the entire web. Other than banning a few sites here and there for trying to spam or scam their algorithm, or the occasional terrorist or hate site, Google doesn't claim to screen which sites end up in its SE index. Thus, there is no implied endorsement of any particular site. In contrast, DMOZ allegedly screens, edits, and selects only certain sites (allegedly only the quality sites, only the best of the best of the internet), and as a result of that policy (or goal) a listing in DMOZ does in fact imply endorsement of the site, again whether or not DMOZ wants to acknowledge that little fact of life.

    I responded to the shygirl post before I got to gworld's response, which of course is dead on.

    Did you think that little bit of sarcasm was funny? or helpful at all?
     
    minstrel, Jun 17, 2006 IP