The biggest fraud on the Internet - DMOZ/ODP

The numbers that matter to the ODp are plain to see -

"outstanding" - number of sites in existent on the internet which have useful content which are not listed. This is how ODP editors see it - not in terms of site submissions. It is important that everyone understand this.

"Approved" - number of sites listed in the directory.

This is so contrary to the ODP's social contract that a large portion of the good editors would resign, should this ever be put in place. The reason most of the "info" isn't available is because of what I wrote in my last post in this thread. making it abvailable for money doesn't solve that problem in any way.

A complaing is a complaint. Paying money to register it doesn't make it any more or less legitimate. I don't see how this would solve anything either.

And some directories offer that service. The ODP has chosen not to because of what the ODP is and what it isn't (it is not a service for webmasters, unblike most other directories).

Even if these were put in place, the problem wouldn't be solved - it would actually get worse, in my opinion, because now it really becomes all about money...

 

How could it get any worse?

I disagree. I firmly believe that you and your colleagues could indeed improve the way DMOZ works by being less secretive.

 

Totally agree.

 

There are no real secrets on the net. That wall is being dismantled bit by bit:

http://www.odpinsider.com/

 

We have had times when it has been much worse. We have times when the directory positively bombed with submissions from SEOs who knew tricks to get multiple listings.

We put tools in place to trap that. They are not perfect, so we try to improve them all the time. We have tools in place that try to catch hijacks, and other ways where data could become irrelevant. There are a bunch of "human tools" too - methods we have learned in how to spot people trying to "get one up on us".

You make those public and all it does it help the person who is trying to find a way through.

So.. it could get a LOT worse.

 

Now please don't do that, Alucard. You know that isn't the kind of openness I'm talking about.

 

Yeah, I thought that posting of the thread about the ODP vision is a riot.

His/her intent was to "bust open" the ODP conspiracy...

What does it show? That the ODP is an organization that is not sitting back on its laurels, but trying to reexamine itself and to keep itself relevant. Any vital (i.e. viable and living) entity needs to do that. If you don't, you put yourself up to stagnation. The argument used by the "insider" was that it indicates that the ODP doesn't know where it is going, where I think anyone reading it in any detail will show just how a lot of editors really think, and how "open" the senior editors are to listen to everyone and see what changes are necessary. I think if you read it in detail, you will see a large agreement between most editors (most of whom aren't senior editors at all) about what the ODP should be.

I also think that webmasters reading that will see what I have been saying for many months on this forum - the goals of the ODP (as represented by its editors) and those of webmasters just plain don't match. So what most webmasters see as "improvements" to it are perceived to be exactly the opposite.

So now you see it, warts and all, people.

 

But you can't split them off - that's the problem. You want "total openness"? That is the consequence. You want limited openness, and you will get those that complain that the ODP isn't totally open, and what are they hiding, and why.....

 

My point about that blog is that your walls are crumbling. That isn't the first one and it won't be the last. You must know that.

 

There's also more information there about indefensible and illegal sites listed in DMOZ...

 

What exactly are the goals of the ODP? To be the world's greatest directory, by listing only its editor's sites?

 

You need to read what I have written.
The ODP process is completely seperate - BUT there is a body that provides information as this is a task that is not "liked" or not realy an editors task it is done seperately and paid for.

Without taking any sides but having a view I have to say as lond as it's a black hole I will not concider it to be even "social" or otherwise usefull.

And the controversy by keeping information from Joe public will tear it apart or make it completely useless.

It also strengthen my belief that anything that doesent add value should be taken off the internet.

Expat

 

Corrected link to the Social Contract. Apologies.

 

ODP editors don't try to take anything off the internet but we do try to only list sites that add value to the ODP directory within the ODP directory.

So that said, how do you determine value? Value to who?

 

Without even attempting to take on the merits of either side of this (I simply don't want the migraine) I will say that OPD is a bit like a law enforcement agency. No, not the protect and serve crap .... but similar in that when one or two (yes, I'm sure there's more - just making a point) make a bad show of ethics, the entire department takes a hit.

When Rodney King got beat, the entire LAPD got a bad rep and come under scrutiny and fire for the actions of a few idiots.

When Mark Furher (yes, that's a stab at parody) was outed/casted as being racist, the OJ defense team was easily able to put a shadow of doubt once again on the entire LAPD. (BTW - you know why the glove didn't fit? Take leather, get it wet, especially with a protein based liquid, say ... like blood, and guess what - it shrinks! What an idiot prosecution team)

Anyway, my only point being that it is easy to point fingers at the entire entity when a few bad people, maybe even a few top officials, make bad decisions.

I've had my share of aggravation with getting listed, but as a whole the concept and value of ODP remains. A little chlorine in the pool might be necessary, but clouding the water with blood will do nothing to clear up the issue.

I'd love to see some positive changes at DMOZ, but I'd want the standards to still be stringient honestly. It's not what you ask for, but how you ask for it ...

 

It really isn't the criteria for listing sites so much as the inconsistency and obvious violations and favoritism in the application of those criteria. That plus the stonewalling is what drives people crazy about DMOZ, not the criteria themselves.

 

Yes Minstrel and that's where the pool could use some chlorine. Editors are needed no doubt, but bad, ill-intended editors need to be weeded out where they exist.

I would think that I'd rather have 20 mediocre editors that need a little oversight and assistance, than one good one that is playing favorites and giving a bad image to the overall project.

Further, I understand the rationale of discontinuing site submission status checks at resource-zone if it is to free up editors to do their jobs and review sites. However, if they can send out "canned answer" emails on rejected editor applications, it seems something similar could be set up for rejected sites. That wouldn't stop the flak and discontent, but, I think that it would:

- alleviate mulitple submissions as people aren't sure that if after a year their in or out
- reduce some complaints and questions about submission statuses
- encourage some webmasters to do a better job at offering up better, unique content

I'm not saying DMOZ can't improve, but all the wasted effort in complaining may be better spent in helping them improve.

There are either fans or fanatics it seems. My collegiate background is History and English, so I can't speak to the psychology of it with authority, but I still believe if it weren't important to the fanatics, they wouldn't be so incensed regardless of what they're posting, saying or convincing themselves.

 

There are plenty of people who have volunteered to help in that effort. The fact is that DMOZ doesn't want their help. Judging by the replies of most DMOZ editors in forums like this one, they don't feel anything needs improving. How often have you read a reply from an editor asserting that DMOZ is working just fine and achieving its stated goals as it is?

 

People have been trying to do that for ages.

I admit that some editors are receptive but most are just arrogant and corrupt. They just wouldn't listen and with all the "powers" that they think the possess, they just massacre rival sites.

Most Dmoz editors are just like Pol Pot armies. They wipe out their enemies without mercy

p/s I said most editors, not all editors

 

Alucard

You are a pathetic liar and a falsificator. These are the two qualities that
are required to be a successful meta editor with DMOZ/ODP.

People here do not and will not believe you or any other ambassadors from
DMOZ/ODP because your arguments stink as well as your rotten organization. I
have been editing for 6.5 years without any complaints about the quality of
my work. (After all, does one need a degree to write an intelligent one line
description of a site ?) I suddenly became incompetent and undesirable for
DMOZ/ODP when I posted in the DMOZ/ODP's forum my correspondence with Aaron
Larson as well as the links to his sites asking why others cannot do what he
already has done. That was the sole reason that one of my accounts was
suspended. Now my categories will accumulate hundreds of unreviewed sites as
they did before I took over. And that is a situation across the board in
majority of categories in DMOZ/ODP.

The every site that was submitted to more than 20 categories I am editing
was getting in unless the site had nothing to do with the category. This was
and is a crime in itself because getting in DMOZ/ODP must be difficult.
DMOZ/ODP likes to create bottlenecks everywhere and complain about shortage
of everything. DMOZ/ODP does not have enough editors because it does not
want them. Getting in has to be difficult for no particular reason. And if
so, someone has to get remuneration for solving the difficulties.

Tell us how much you are making monthly? You do not want to?

Well, I will do it for you. Look at editing logs of meta-editor Aaron
Larson. Aaron Larson, a lawyer, does editing on weekdays during his prime
working hours. Why Aaron Larson, a lawyer, instead of making US$300 an hour
by serving his clients does DMOZ/ODP editing ? Because Aaron Larson, a
lawyer, makes at least US$300 an hour by editing DMOZ/ODP, thus he is making
four digit figures monthly by "volunteering" his time to DMOZ/ODP.

There three types of people in DMOZ/ODP:

(1) those who know that organization was created to make very reach those
who are on the top of DMOZ/ODP;
(2) those who believe in the bullshit that DMOZ/ODP is presenting as its
official goals, these pathetic creatures are making wealthier the category
number 1 and support a semi-legitimate façade of DMOZ/ODP;
(3) those who understood that DMOZ/ODP is rotten and corrupt organization
that was from the day one designed to make the category number 1 people very
reach by abusing the category number 2 and who jointed DMOZ/ODP to make
money before it is too late.

DMOZ/ODP will collapse when and if there will be no people in the category
number 2 which are the driving force behind the whole scam called DMOZ/ODP.
That why the stinky ambassadors like yourself are lurking around trying to
sell the rotten ideas of your corrupt organization