DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

If you change to "gay water sports" you can get up to 61 listings...

 

61 listing is nothing. try pornzite.com, it had 126 listing but now it has only 107 listing.

partial list of links in their entry page includes such high quality subjects as:

"Fisting king"
"object Freaks"
"Shocking BDSM"
"Pee lover"
"Closeup Pee"
"Drinking Piss"
"Tortured Girl"

DMOZ is really useful and classy act, what other directory on the Internet you can find that gives 107 links to such a useful site?

 

Well, the adult industry is such a saturated industry, I'm sure that most of the adult editors are there for less-than-noble reasons.

 

Why does it not suprise me that I cannot get listed, yet cherry boys gets 40 plus listings in dmoz

 

I'm doing just fine without trying to get new DMOZ listings.
Why would I want to submit my quality sites, and help a company that allows promotion of child porn, and in general smells rank?

 

I cannot believe that Google and DMOZ are allowing these types of sites to continue to listed -- even if it is in the adult section of the directory.

More importantly, how is it pornographers and crooks always get around rules that those of us who have serious and completely legitimate, family friendly websites, would get killed for trying.

As I recall, you are only supposed to submit the main page once to DMOZ, but pornographers get to do it multiple times -- and on so many different levels!

 

I see CherryBoys still has all 61 of its listings in DMOZ. I guess the DMOZ editors don't see this as bad an offense as the folks here at DP. Either that or there is too much BS involded in actally removing a site(s). I also can't help but notice the absense of DMOZ editor replies in this thread. On most threads dealing with wrongdoings, we would have dozens of them lining up to make an appearance. For some reason though, they are avoiding this one.

 

Can it be that the DMOZ editors behind these listings have too much power in DMOZ?

 

good bye, credibility.

 

Petition AOL and Google* to force a change in guidelines to prevent this sort of thing happening. If there is illegality report it to the appropriate authorities. Many of the problems in Adult refer back to incidents of editor abuse that have been dealt with by removal of editors but the mess not cleared up properly. Coupled with contradictory, poorly-worded, and sometimes unwritten guidelines that appear to conflict with general guidelines the Adult branch is nothing to be proud of. A large number of existing and former editors object very strongly to perceptions of abuse lingering in Adult despite the removal of abusive editors, and some editors have left as a result. Attempts have been made to address the matter internally but whilst this was a somewhat hot subject late last year I understand that it has gone somewhat quiet.

I am absolutely appalled by the description of some of the sites listed in Adult/Arts/Online_Writing/Fiction/BDSM/Spanking/Free/ especially the fact that one of them is "cooled" i.e. deemed the most comprehensive/definitive on the subject matter, is said to include child spanking stories, and has a initial page that says "This site contains erotic stories intended solely
for the entertainment of adults". I don't pretend to know if the site is illegal or not - I am not going to look further and I don't know the law. But it is irresponsible in the extreme at the very least. And gives an extremely poor impression of the directory. IMO.

* Google is a stakeholder in AOL and can therefore exert influence should it so choose.

 

Exactly. As does the number of such sites with multiple listings (not 2 or 3 but dozens and hundreds of listings) see in such lists as http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html - whether or not it's illegal is almost irrelevant at this point (and please note I said "almost") - it is an enormous public relations blunder by DMOZ and for the life of me the apparent disinterest in rectifying it baffles me.

 

Somehow, something is not right here:
http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html
#5

I think we can all agree that DMOZ does not have sufficient checks and balances to insure that "members follow mutually accepted codes of conduct and editorial standards".

I haven't even seen anyone defending in this thread. More and more, it seems that even the editors are having trouble defending this unchecked, unbalanced monstrosity.

 

Nope, no editors here to explain this one away, like they try to do all those stories of corruption, bribery, fraud, and sabatoge. Can someone associated with DMOZ please explain to us why CherryBoys has 61 listings? I patiently await your reply.

 

For all those who have waited years for a review, you may wonder how these "quality" sites get not one but dozens of listings:

56 NAKED-LESBIAN-ORAL-SEX.COM
52 HOTSEXSITES.ORG
49 SEXYNUDECOEDS.COM
48 CYBERSEXNETWORK2.COM (WTF?! Look 3 lines below!)
44 AMATEUR-TEEN-LESBIAN-SEX.COM
44 FREE-PORN-PICS-FREE-PORN-PICS.COM
42 CYBERSEXNETWORK.COM (WTF?! Look 3 lines above!)
42 FREE-SEX-PICTURES-FREE-SEX-PICTURES.COM
38 NUDE-SEX-FREE-PORN-PICS.COM

Do you think they really needed all those listings, or do you think that there is more to it than meets the eye? Hmm......

 

Don't waste your time, the editors who are behind these listings are too powerful for any of DMOZ editors here to be able to do anything about it.

Do you want to see something even more interesting:

You have all noticed that cherryboys (.) com has 61 listing but what you have not noticed is that cherryboys (.) net which is not even a real site and it only redirects to cherryboys (.) com has 104 listing.

http://www.whois.sc/CHERRYBOYS.NET

Don't you think that this is great? a non existing site gets 104 listings.

 

That may explain why cybersexnetworks.com has 42 listings but cybersexnetworks2.com has 48. I can't believe that NO editor has noticed these things that all of us non-editors just stumble upon.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that the rest of DMOZ is a front for the adult section that no one wants to talk about? Sort of the same way that in certain sections of certain cities operations like pizza restaurants, taverns, and the like exist to legitimize and provide money laundering services for criminal activities? Because my guess is it is in the adult section that the real money is to be made.

 

I see in the Adult Guidelines of DMOZ that doorways, redirects, and mirrors are expressly forbidden. I guess a few always slip through, in the case of cherryboys.net about 104 slipped through.

 

wow. and i would be happy with just one listing.
=X

 

I do find it strange that no DMOZ editors are commenting on this thread. There have been other message threads in this forum where one meta editor was competing to see how many old and outdated sites they could delete to improve the directory. Where is this person now when they are really needed? Something doesn't smell right here.

P.S. I took one blog category last night and checked over 100 pages of listings on DMOZ. There was not one site out of the 100 I checked that had any kind of advertising on it. Apparently, it's ok to promote "child porn" on DMOZ, but if anyone wants to make a living via their site or blog then forget about being listed in their directory. Surely, Google is aware by now what could be going on within this organization. If they are not, it won't be long before the truth comes out.