DMOZ Corruption according to Google

Well, I guess that's good for me as my clients are safe
I've never posted any client sites on the forum as they have Non Disclosure Agreements

 

And then they are promoted to Metas and Admins.

It sounds like a girl who was only a "little bit" pregnant. Since you are an editor in Adult, may be you can answer this question; how many of the listings in adult section are owned by adult Meta?

 

"Lairs"???

 

I don't think she makes any secret of that. Go look it up in the internal forums.

 

1) I'm not really an Adult editor anymore...

2) As brizzie said, it's no secret that the meta in Adult has listings.

3) What does that prove?

 

That’s patent twaddle.

No one is saying there is no corruption. No one is saying the ODP are not without fault. There have been many cases of real rotten scoundrels detected and removed over the years. This includes category editors right through to meta. And no doubt there are *some* who are yet to be detected.

This is another example of how the ODP is held up to impossible standards. Nope its got lots a faults. Sorry but its not perfect like every thing else in the gworld’s universe.

 

These aren't random people telling me this. These are friends and yes, I know the URLs and their sites. Yes, I have seen them listed.

OK, so as to not waste thread space, I will tell you Sidjf's response:

"Your friends lied. They got their sites listed really quick and for free like everyone else does. They are just prejudice, a DMOZist if you will...."

 

So tell us how many of adult Meta's sites "officially" are listed? How many deep links does the Meta have? Is it normal for Meta's to have multiple deep links for their own sites? Why does a Meta give you and other adult editors a hard time when certain web sites do not get listed fast enough?

The question is, why nothing is done about it? Who are the people who protect the abusers and the corruption? How can certain "senior" editors openly abuse the directory and stay on as editors, if there are not even higher up editors who protect them? The problem is not with isolated abuse and corruption, the problem is with systematic corruption and abuse that is tolerated in DMOZ.

 

It is pointless trying to convince you of anything but I can’t let that statement stand. Just because you say it one million times does not make it true. If it became apparent that there was systemic tolerated abuse within the ODP I would not waste one more second of my time there.

 

I have no idea at all.

No idea.

It's not abnormal, if the sites are listable.

Huh? Are you on drugs again?

Proof?

Proof?

Proof?

 

I think we're getting sidetracked here. It started out as a productive discussion on what could be done to fix DMOZ.

There's no point arguing that there is/isn't corruption in DMOZ, everybody knows there is. By why is there corruption? Because it's so hard to get the site listed in the first place, make the listing process quicker and more transparent, then a lot of the causes of corruption will disappear.

 

The corruption issue

If you check out http://research.dmoz.org/~gti96/ddp/03014/ and scroll down to the section on Deeplinks, you will find that a practice worthy of investigation is "adding multiple deeplinks to a specific site in the same category". By extension this would also cover adding multiple URLs belonging to the same person in the same category. If you were to check the editing record of some serving Adult editors then it would take you approximately 30 seconds to find an example of them doing exactly that. So what you have are guidelines, unofficial but still linked to as an editor resource, that say that a certain practice is worthy of investigation as one of the signs of editor abuse. And that practice being employed by senior Adult editors quite openly.

Let's go to http://dmoz.org/add.html and scroll down to Step 1 second point.

Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed in the directory. Sites with overlapping and repetitive content are not helpful to users of the directory. Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites.

This is the basis of the rejection of sites from the same owner where material overlaps - splitting your site into separate domains to maximise marketing potential is a common enough webmaster technique but DMOZ only allows one site from an owner where the content is similar or overlapping. Editors who have multiple sites of this type and list them will be removed as abusive. So if a senior editor has multiple sites on a similar theme and lists most of them quite openly, and nothing happens, then it will pose questions.

The explanation is that Adult listing policies are/were different to other branches. But I have never heard any rational explanation as to why this should be without being clearly documented and enshrined in Guidelines as exceptions.

Now I don't say what happens in Adult is abusive. Because the branch developed listing policies that were different, which were known about by AOL staff, that were accepted. What I say is that what happens in Adult gives an overwhelming impression of abuse and corruption because it has adopted listing practices that contradict those in other branches where an editor would be removed for following something similar and it is not clearly and officially documented in Guidelines, along with the reasoning, as being an exception. So if DMOZ gives the impression of being corrupt with high level protection for abusive editors then regardless of whether it is true or not, DMOZ is responsible for that impression. Any editor or former editor can come here, myself included, and state the truth - that corruption and abuse at the senior levels of DMOZ is minimal and certainly not systematic. But we are undermined by DMOZ itself in creating and leaving a situation in Adult that to a substantial majority of people, including editors and editalls, looks distinctly murky. The opportunities have been there for years to clear the murk, stop the practices or document them. But until last December any attempt to raise it resulted in the editor raising it being squashed very hard very quickly. Even in the debate started in December there were clearly elements who wanted to stop the discussion dead but at least there was some movement.

Combine activities which DMOZ documentation tells editors is a sign of abuse with the suppression of discussion and you have a situation which the likes of gworld will exploit and extrapolate to all senior editors. And DMOZ gives him the material on a plate. Go figure.

There is a truth out there - neb, annie, sid, lmocr, and hundreds of other editors, myself included when I was there, would not sit there and tolerate widespread systematic abuse at high levels. But it is extremely difficult to convince outsiders of that whilst there is a situation in Adult that gives the opposite impression (whether that impression is correct or not).

There is an answer and that is to introduce a guideline that says unless the editor community has debated and agreed an exemption, no editor may have more than one listing of any site or group of sites they own or operate in any one branch or World language sub-branch. Any editor who objects to that is clearly not operating in the interests of DMOZ but in their own interests. The opportunity to (openly) obtain an exemption means that editors with truly valuable diverse sites would have an opportunity to state their case and gain community approval.

 

Translation: I'd rather not know. It might rock the boat or jeopardize my status as a DMOZ editor.

 

It seems Sid is too scared to answer, would you like to give it a try and tell us how many sites owned by Meta are listed? How many deep links Meta have?

You can say that there is no systematic abuse as many times as you like but as long as anyone can see the clear traces of abuse and listings against the guideline and the management inaction against it, it does not make it true. It is very obvious that not only you volunteer for an organization that tolerates abuse but you also defend such abuse by pretending that it doesn't exist.

Why the hell don't you say that it is an abuse? It is against guideline and only beneficial for the editors, what is your definition of abuse?

I would love to see that they try to document the "exception" in the guideline, here is a suggestion:

"Because some editors need to make money through their affiliate programs, those senior editors can list hundreds of affiliate doorway pages in DMOZ as an exception to the guideline."

 

LOL, I don't think that is going to happen.

Because it has been investigated and the official verdict is no abuse. Just looks like it might be if you don't understand that the way Adult web sites are marketed does not suit a conventional DMOZ model. Or something like that. AOL were aware of the listing practices and accepted them and as they make the rules, if they say it is not abuse then it is not abuse. If it was my bat and my ball then it would be up to me to make up the rules and see who wants to play. I would have different rules but in this case it isn't my bat or ball and I am choosing not to play.

 

Investigated and cleared by the same admins you yourself have characterized as incompetent? That's not very reassuring, is it?

That's way too much like allowing policemen or politicians to do their own investigations in complaints against them of wrongdoing.

 

It sounds like Chicago under Al Capone, when he had all the judges and the police in his pocket.

 

Surely a quality adult website is no different from a quality site. Doorway pages are doorway pages whatever you're selling from them?

 

If AOL don't want to classify it as abuse then it is their directory to do with as they want. My point is that because it looks like abuse then you change the practices or change the documentation. So it is clear whether it is abuse or not for all to see.

 

The differences for listing in DMOZ:

• Non-Adult site must have a unique and large content.
  
• Adult site barely needs a content and definitely doesn't need unique content.
  
• Non-Adult site can not be a doorway page.
  
• Adult site can be a doorway page.
• Non-Adult affiliate pages are not listed.
  
• Adult affiliate pages are listed.
  
• Non-Adult hardly get many deep links.
  
• Adult sites that have nothing useful in comparison to other adult sites, with only old content get hundreds of deep links.

But this is not abuse, only "exception" to the guideline.