Remove Listing from DMOZ

Did I get you in trouble?

I think you missed the DMOZ lecture that they give to all new editors that they should never admit that anything can be wrong with DMOZ.

Tell you the truth, I was surprised that you dared to say, that in your opinion it didn't look right. No matter what happens, you should always feel good about the fact that at least in one post, you were a HONEST person and not a DMOZ editor.

 

not at all. i was merely pointing out that you were trying to misconstrue my words into what they were not.

I don't understand what the point of saying that was. For starters, it's plainly not true, and every editor here today has gone and looked for the corruption you alleged (a clear sign we all unanimously agree any DMOZ corruption needs to be rooted out), as well as each having a dig at the ODP's choice to have an Adult category.

Whatever your perception of DMOZ editors, there are no policies regarding admission of fallibility, public or otherwise, and you'll have a hard time finding a single editor claiming DMOZ has no faults... but every time you or any other disgruntled webmaster unable to selfishly profit from DMOZ at his competitor's disadvantage make your wild unsubstantiated accusations about widespread corruption, if we all come back at you saying essentially the same thing ('we don't believe that's true, but if it is, prove it and help us improve ODP') it's because that is the only adult, rational and mature reply possible!

 

... except that part was neither fair nor adult and mature, was it?

 

Maybe we should continue the debate over here?

 

gworld - have you truly been going over 1200 posts on this forum on more or less the same theme. Or does it just feel like it? I think it very odd that you got a group of editors who would be quite happy to see the end of the Adult section, potential allies in your campaign, and you blast into them. An opportunity lost I guess. The more this thread has progressed the more deja vue I am getting - I swear this exact same scenario was played out a couple of years back on another forum and the name gworld seems familiar. Much has changed since then. We even admit that a small amount of abuse exists though it is not tolerated, that there are areas we can improve in, and minstrel is sometimes right. Look, we'll take a few things out of this that will help us on the quality control side, we have a plus out of it overall. Thanks. You have my sympathies for your loss.

 

You are coming along nicely, Grasshopper... in another couple of months I'll show you how to delete the word "sometimes"...

 

That's this key right? ................Oh no I deleted minstrel

 

I think you have totally missed the point of my posting. I am not against adult section or porn since I don't think that I should decide over other people sexual preference. As far as I am concerned people can do with woman, man, aliens, standing, sleeping or what ever way the like to and they can film it, take picture,.... Porn doesn't do anything for me but I never even think about limiting other people's choices.

What I am against is DMOZ corruption and the way the organization is run. Take away the corruption have an open and clear process for submissions and rejections and I will support DMOZ.

 

Do you mean the corruption is the God given right to DMOZ editors and they are the only one who should selfishly benefit from DMOZ at their competitor's disadvantage?

 

Better yet, lets go here. The troll would never follow us there, too much reading.

 

Why do you persist in trolling? where on earth do I say that?

another one-liner, another misquote, another point you misinterpret in an effort to slate a DMOZ editor. Do you deny that the group I indentified as bringing nothing to the debate is where most of the unsubtantiated flaming is coming from?
The people saying there is some corruption that needs be stamped out are either editors or mature, rational DMOZ criticisers who genuinely want to see it improve, and these are generally the type of webmaster who have little to gain by any listing/delisting of sites, and just want to improve a web resource for the Internet to benefit. Those, on the other hand, that come into a thread frothing at the mouth with slabbering shouts of 'all dmoz editors are corrupt' are people with a serious bone to pick, and you know why that is.

 

1. it's not a misquote - it's exactly what you said (look back a page or two and check it yourself) - as for one-liners, it wasn't that either:

2. I do indeed deny that most of the criticism of DMOZ comes from a "disgruntled webmaster unable to selfishly profit from DMOZ at his competitor's disadvantage". I am certainly not in that category and neither are most of the people who criticize DMOZ here. It is, however, the typical narrow-minded, insulting, and condescending "defense" of the type of DMOZ editor you seem to exemplify, the type that populates the Resourceless Zone.

 

Let me shed some light on this. DMOZ asks you to suggest a URL. The difference between a suggestion and a submission is distinguishable and tangible. A submission is presumed to have certain obligations associated with it, whether justified or not. Suggestion on the other hand, is just that. As a business owner, you are suggested to purchase services and products by telemarketers and sales people quite frequently. It is not assumed by the sellers that you will act on their suggestions. They sincerely hope that you do. You on the other hand are under no obligation to do so. Now, if you consider the same suggestion, a submission, the dynamics of the decision making process will change substantially. You are expected to either accept or reject a submission. As I mentioned earlier, DMOZ considers presenting a URL for inclusion a suggestion. The link on the top of the page reads “suggest URL”.

 

riz makes a good point, and I think the ODP has been a bit careless in its use of terminology, which has led to some false expectations among webmasters and SEOs. The RZ forum was called "Submission Status". Even the help page (http://dmoz.org/help/helpmain.html) talks about "Submitting Your Site" and the phrase "Submit" and "submission" is used throughout.

ODP editors think of the stuff that is added using "Suggest URL" as a suggestion, webmasters and SEOs tend to think of it as a submission, with all the implied obligations.

 

This topic keeps rearing its head. So I figured I toss another opinion into the fire.

Has anyone bothered to read the Adult Guidelines? Let's take a look, shall we?
dmoz.org/guidelines/adult/listing.html

Under "Image Gallery Sites" it gives "minimum requirements" for a listing, things like 20 images per entry, warning pages, when shared content would be acceptable, etc.

Now take a look at some of the so called "abusive" listings... like asian-sweetheats

The first listing in Adult: Image Galleries: Fetishes: Clothing: Uniforms: Military: Free has 27 images (that would be more than the minimum set forth in the guidelines ), they are unique to the site, they have the appropriate warning page, and is topic appropriate. From what I can see the listing is guideline compliant.

The next one in Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Asian: Softcore: Free: B has another 27 images and again is topic appropriate and also conforms to the adult guidelines.

Same with the listing in Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Asian: Softcore: Free: H and the listing in Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Asian: Softcore: Free: S.

As much as it pains me to say it, it does appear that the listings are guidelines compliant.

I'm not saying I agree with the Adult guidelines, I don't, but then again I don't edit in that part of the directory. These Adult guidelines were discussed before being put into action and they were agreeded upon by consensus of the community.

Personally, I believe this is the underlying problem with having specific "watermarks" when evaluating sites. It causes people to meet the minimums to maximize their listings. While it is a characteristic of the Adult section of the ODP directory, it's obvious (to me anyway) why it would never become part of the General Guidelines.

Yet, this is exactly what many webmasters want when they are seeking answers to, "How much content do I need?" And it's exactly why the editors don't want to adopt such policies. Generally speaking editors are looking for the best representations for a topic. So something like "relative value" might not be specific enough for someone looking for the 'line' of "How much?" it is what editors in the general directory want.

The idea from the editor persepective is to find sites that are "better" than what is already listed. Once you say something like "20 images" for a listing, most times that is what you'll get. So, as is the case in this instance, instead of one site having one listing with 100 images, you get 5 listings with 20 images per... after all, it is what the guidelines require... See what I'm getting at?

This particular case gets thrown in our faces everytime someone is looking for examples of "corruption" and every time it is looked at by a bunch of editors because at first glance it seems like something strange is going on. But as editors become familiar with the Adult guidelines they see that it is an example of why the adult section is different.

As I said, I don't like it, but I'm not editing in that area of the directory. What does make me sad is how much time is used by editors that try to explain something to someone who, quite frankly, doesn't want to hear it.

No offense, but I'm just not seeing how the sites owned by an editor are any different from any other site listed in the image gallieries section. People are crying for "fairness" but then don't want to be fair when it comes to editor sites and want those sites somehow restricted because they are editors.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, because I don't own any sites. I edit in areas I like the topic of (personal enjoyment) and I'm very active in abuse investigations. Yep, I'm one of those "corrupt" editors that have directory wide access that have nothing to do with site design, SEO, or get any income at all from the Internet... and speaking quite plainly, there are more of my types then their are web professionals. (Not that my saying this will change the opinion of anyone with an anti-ODP bias).

Let the flames begin!

 

Part of the problem is perception.

You say, "The idea from the editor perspective is to find sites that are "better" than what is already listed." The problem is that any one of us can go into any DMOZ category and find dead links and crappy sites and have no trouble picking out better ones that could be there but aren't, so when we hear the "best of the web" argument it's a little hard to swallow.

You say, "I'm just not seeing how the sites owned by an editor are any different from any other site". The problem is that you have sites owned by editors (or their friends) listed multiple times when other webmasters are looking at their own or others' sites and asking, "why list THAT site 4, 5, 10 times and not this one even once?".

Then there is the issue Alucard raised - rules that are clear to editors are not at all clear to non-editors (e.g., "suggestion" versus "submission") or are not specified at all. When questions have been raised about this, the usual argument is "we don't want to be more specific because that encourages spammers", which frankly I think is nonsense.

Then there is the issue of arrogance: "only a spammer would complain".

Then there is the issue of lack of feedback: "we don't tell people anything about whether or why their submissions are rejected because that will just encourage spammers".

You guys need some serious public relations work...

 

I agree 100%

Please show me someone who is doing it better. I maintain that it is (and always will be) a work in progress. While I think your point has some validity, I think there are some exceptionally well-maintained categories out there and the idea that just anyone could find dead sites in any randomly-picked category is just not true. Yes, you can always quote examples, but I can just as easily quote examples of categories which don't fall into that characterisation. The truth is somewhere in between.

And you have other sites in Adult, not owned by editors or ex-editors who are listed multiple times. That isn't editor corruption - it's the same as saying "why is my competitor listed and I am not" outside of Adult - the answer is often "Because it hasn't been reviewed yet", not because of some corruption. It is a lot less nefarious than a lot of the accusations would like to make out.

Walk a mile in my shoes, please... (or that of any editor) For the same reason that Google doesn't give out its PR calculation algorithm, the ODP isn't going to get into debates about how it catches spammers.

As for "rules", they are actually public, in as much as there ARE rules. There are discussions about how those rules should be interpreted that take place in internal fora, but as often than not, those also are discussed in public on fora like these (heck, why do you think a lot of us bother to post on these fora? To try to explain this sort of stuff, that's why). While I know many don't like the tone on RZ, if you read beyond the attitudes, a lot of the posts really do explain exactly this - the idea that it's a suggestion - something to (hopefully) draw an editor's attention to a site, rather than waiting for them to find it by chance. But that is dismissed as ODP "officialese" - well, sorry, but that's the way it is.

The only "secret" stuff that there is deals with how the ODP finds out about mirrors, submission spammers, catches dead or redirected sites and all that. While the conspiracy theorists would love to believe there is more, there really isn't. I have explained before about WHY those have to be kept secret, and I hope the reasonable people on reading this (you know who you are) will understand that.

Which counters the "all ODP editors are corrupt" or "all categories are full of dead sites and garbage"-type of statements. Both sides are throwing out sweeping generalisations, which I really have a problem with. I don't like either attitude, and wish that both would stop.

ok, and you are saying you don't understand this? You really would rather than people did just enough on their sites to get into the ODP, rather than design a good site in and of itself? Look at the example of the Adult image gallery categories which was mentioned above? You give website owners specific guidelines about what is acceptable, and then all of a sudden you are forced to list garbage where the webmaster has put JUST enough on the page. You really want the rest of the directory to be like that? I don't, sorry.

Why should the ODP be arbiter of what makes a good site? Build a content-rich site which people are going to be interested in, and chances are (eventually) it will get listed in the ODP. So what if it doesn't? Is that the end of the world? Should you be kowtowing to the ODP and make changes just to be able to get listed?

I guess I just do not understand this demand for feedback on listings...

When I started a website many years ago, I put requests to be added to a lot of local niche directories. I got listed in probably 5% of them, and all the rest of them I never heard one squeak from. I didn't consider that rude, or irresponsible - they just chose not to include me. Whatever.

I think minstrel, you have previously made a really good point about how you can still get very good SE results without a listing in the ODP and that it makes for a small benefit to get a listing. So why all the furour and demands?

 

How is DMOZ "forced" to list anything, good or bad? How is giving some reasons for rejection of a site "forcing" anything at all on your response to future submissions?

You have previously said that you sought clarification as to what upsets people about DMOZ. I am simply attempting to provide that information.

That said, I confess that it is of theoretical or academic interest only to me - a kind of study in organizational psychology, if you like. In truth, even if all these things were accomplished, I am still of the opinion that the concept which is the foundation for DMOZ is fundamentally flawed and not achievable. I think the day of the general comprehensive directory is long gone, especially one which is human-edited.

 

Let’s assume that DMOZ were to inform the site owner, reasons contributing to the failure of a listing in the directory. There is only one benefit that comes from it: Let the webmaster know how to change the site to rectify these issues. There are two immense problems with this situation. The paramount of which is, the directory is not created for the benefit of the webmasters, but for the general public. It is understood that webmasters are a subset of this group; the benefit should be afforded to the larger group. The second problem is a fundamental issue. Why would a webmaster redesign a site to satisfy DMOZ? Shouldn’t the site visitors be the only focus? If a site has minor issues, not related to the actual content, the sites are not rejected outright. Editors have contacted the site owners at times to point out broken links and other minor functionality issues. If a webmaster is willing to change the content of a site just to get it listed in DMOZ; can you honestly, without bias, justify any benefit of such listing to DMOZ users?

 

True, and we do find sites that are "better" than what is already listed. We also look for dead links and crappy sites to delete. As quickly as sites come, go and change we can't keep up. Maybe it's futile, but we do our best.

Similarly, when I take my grandsons or dogs to a park, I carry a trash bag and pick up all the trash I come across. I know I'll never get it all but does that mean I shouldn't at least do what I can? Also, I clean up when my dogs leave "droppings" at the park, but I never pick up the goose droppings. In real life goose droppings are much like the Adult section of the ODP. It's there, I wish it wasn't, but I'm sure not going to clean it up. It's up to us to either do what we can or give up and complain.

The rules are right out in the open but there's so much reading that too few want to get into it. Using "submission" when "suggestion" is more appropriate has been the source of much misunderstanding when combined with a failure to read the guidelines.

I'm with you on this one. It's mostly spammers who complain, but not enough that everyone who complains should be dismissed as a spammer. But in all fairness, this is mostly a r-z type of reply.

With all due respect, that's just a canned r-z response. Editors posting at r-z are speaking for themselves as individuals and not as representatives of the ODP...they even put that in their sig. Answering real feedback is left to the discretion of each individual editor. I reply to feedback a lot. Not always, but a lot.

I agree.

EDITED: Yikes, several posts have been added as I was writing.