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 Supports Child Porn?

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by dvduval, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. Deobfuscator

    Deobfuscator Guest

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #961
    I don't even know what the heck WPW is. But we're way offtopic here again.

    Anthony - you will probably realise that I give as good as I get in a forum. I can happily have a flame war all day if you like, but everything goes WAY off topic.

    If you stick to the topic, I'll stick to the topic. You've made some good points, and I've given you my honest opinion and insight.
     
    Deobfuscator, Feb 5, 2006 IP
    Homer likes this.
  2. anthonycea

    anthonycea Banned

    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    342
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #962
    OK so you are not CBP, the censor moderator/DMOZ editor on WPW :confused:
     
    anthonycea, Feb 5, 2006 IP
  3. Deobfuscator

    Deobfuscator Guest

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #963
    No. I am not CBP.
     
    Deobfuscator, Feb 5, 2006 IP
  4. anthonycea

    anthonycea Banned

    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    342
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #964
    Well that says something for you!

    Minstrel is very good at issues, so maybe you both can refrain from attacks and discuss issues as you wish to do!
     
    anthonycea, Feb 5, 2006 IP
  5. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #965
    OK, I'll bite. As I understand it Admins were selected in part for their complete absence of possible conflicts of interest. Unless you have evidence of something AOL didn't uncover. Are you sure you don't mean Meta editor - I am aware of a meta editor with multiple adult websites but who makes no secret of that fact.
     
    brizzie, Feb 5, 2006 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #966
    Let's go step by step. Deobfuscator that previously stated that he has no connection with adult section, all of sudden has slip of tongue and mentions an editall that has hundred of porn sites, you are mentioning Meta editor that have hundred of sites. I find it strange that a person who is only interested in freedom of speech as he claims, all of sudden not only knows an editall and all the sites owned by that person but also wants to start a new thread so he properly can defend this editor but he still hasn't answered my question that if it is as he claims that anybody who is connected with porn is a bad person and should not be listened to, how come he thinks these people are such upstanding citizens that can be high ranking DMOZ editors?

    Isn't putting people who are so deeply involved in porn in charge of volunteer organization that should have what is best for users as a goal like putting a bank robber in charge of bank security? ;)
     
    gworld, Feb 5, 2006 IP
  7. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #967
    To clarify, I mentioned there is a meta editor who has multiple sites - I don't know the actual number. That doesn't mean all those multiple sites are listed - I don't know the particulars for any specific editor. And under DMOZ guidelines editors may own and list sites with which they are associated provided they declare them and abide by the guidelines when listing them, giving them no favour over competitor sites. Many editors at meta, editall, and regular editor levels own and have listed sites with which they are associated under those conditions. Personally, amongst the 23,000 or so sites on my official editing stats, I think I listed about 5 or 6 registered to me or to a friend or family member, and declared but did not list a number of others, some of which I red noted as unlistable. For the record I am not, have never been in any way associated with any site with even a naughty word in them let alone adult content. Since the meta editor I know of makes no secret of owning multiple adult sites I can only assume that (a) they have been properly declared, and (b) other meta editors and the Admins are satisfied those sites do not receive preferential treatment. In other words, owning and listing sites with which one is associated is not, per se, evidence of abusive editing under DMOZ guidelines, and not grounds for removal. Editors are removed when it is found they have failed to declare sites with an intention to deceive, or are found to have given preferential or favourable treatment to sites they are associated with.

    But you are right in pointing out the inconsistency of attacking your credentials because of associations with adult related websites whilst a meta editor and, therefore, DMOZ community leader also has associations with adult related websites. An attack based on those grounds is an attack on that meta editor and all other editors that have associations with adult related websites.

    Could you be trusted to be an editor and act with integrity and fairness in dealing with sites you own and sites belonging to competitors. You have shown in this forum a hatred for corrupt practices so I assume you would consider yourself to have that necessary integrity. And have contempt for any editor you proved beyond reasonable doubt to be corrupt. So it is also reasonable to suppose others can have a similar degree of integrity and fulfill editorial roles without allowing conflicts of interest to affect their judgement. Obviously from time to time, especially in Adult branch, some editors are found to have abused their position and have been removed.
     
    brizzie, Feb 5, 2006 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #968
    Lets start with clarifying that I didn't mean to say that you were involved in adult and as you mentioned, I was just bringing to attention the inconsistency of attacking someone based on what meta editors and editalls are doing.

    In response to your question, do I think that I have an integrity and fairness in dealing with sites, so I won't be influenced by my own interest? YES, I think so.

    Would I ask you or anyone else to trust me based on my own opinion? HELL NO.

    If I was in charge of any organization and I was in position of trust, I would implement so many procedures and so much openness that no one in the world could question my integrity. Words while are nice, can not be the guaranty for integrity, only actions can.

    During this thread and other threads it is shown that there are quite serious problems inside DMOZ but I think everyone should understand that removing some abusive editors or couple of unpopular listings will not solve the problem. The only way for a volunteer organization to survive and thrive is, when it bases it's policies on openness and implants procedures that makes it impossible to question the real goals of the organization.

    If there are editors that think that openness and implantation of procedures that stops corruption will only serve my agenda and not DMOZ and the Internet community as a whole, I would be more than interested to hear their reasoning.
     
    gworld, Feb 5, 2006 IP
  9. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #969
    The main way of attacking the problem of the appearance of abuse is to make the structure of Adult galleries comply with general listing guidelines - 1 site per owner and let the owner do the navigation. If they don't then tough. A change in listing policy will persuade them. That makes it easy for other editors to monitor and identify abuse, creates a total clarity of what is permitted and what isn't, and means that from an external perspective it does not look as if a handful of webmasters have between them thousands of listings. I don't particularly care at this stage how much work went into mining the works of a dozen or so webmasters to produce thousands of listings - it should never have been allowed to develop as a practice in the first place. I pointed out earlier how similar "content" sites were treated when it comes to non-Adult artists' galleries. There is your model. As it stands the corrupt handywork of many a removed abusive editor remains lining their pockets and proving that it doesn't matter if you get caught after you have listed your 100 or so galleries, they will remain forever. If that doesn't work then perhaps more radical restructuring would be desirable, but using existing DMOZ practices that everyone understands would be the best way at first. Oh, and ensure every listing by every editor removed for abuse in Adult is removed as punishment.
     
    brizzie, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  10. bradley

    bradley Peon

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #970
    Minstrel I genuinely think you ought to go back and read what I have said in this thread. You seem to have missed or somehow misinterpreted it.

    Anthony, you and I have a different stance on pornography, in that you and large sections of society see it as immoral, whilst I and large sections of society do not. There's little else more than can be said. I'm with you on the paedophilia thing but I'm not when it comes to innocuous porn sites like the ones you listed. There are far worse sites in Adult that neither of us would like to visit, despite their apparent legality.

    And whilst I'll repeat for the benefit of people with selective hearing like Minstrel that if it were up to me DMOZ would just get rid of Adult completely, for moral and pragmatic reasons, or at the very least apply the same guidelines to it as it does to the rest of the directory (but obviously this is just more 'bafflegab'), I'd like to directly answer the question you're asking me, but obviously I need to look at them (not a possibility at this moment in time) before I can say whether they have enough original content etc etc. But something tells me that's not what you mean when you ask me if they're quality? Again, you're being very shady - why can't you just say what you think is wrong with them, so I don't have to second guess you all the bloody time?

    Methinks the reason you don't see them as quality is subjective (they are immoral i.e. they're not quality). If it's really quality you want to assess you should be doing that from an objective POV - something can be quality whether you agree with it or not. Can we find something else we disagree about so that I can demonstrate this? I think football (soccer) is the best sport on earth. But following the superbowl on the Fox website last night instead of writing my essay, I was impressed by the quality of the coverage they had - even if the sport is far inferior to soccer and all the players dress up as Spandex knights and only ever play for like eight seconds at a time!
     
    bradley, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  11. bradley

    bradley Peon

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #971
    quoted for truth. It makes reading threads turning into scrolling through threads looking for nuggets of sanity. Enough of the personal one-liners flying in all directions - it achieves nothing, no matter how good it feels. No doubt I've been part of it in the past, and please remind me of it if I ever resort to it in the future. gworld's upped his game - so should you two AC and Obfus.
     
    bradley, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  12. bradley

    bradley Peon

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #972
    first off, apologies for the triple post. I know it's extremely bad forum etiquette; these threads just grow so fast, it's hard to deal with every point addressed to me at once! Mind you, if you removed all the pointless one-liners and personal attacks it'd be a lot more streamlined and maybe just 20 pages long!

    It'd be a very hard case to argue. A jury would *perhaps* agree with you if, like Yahoo!, we were paid to list and proclaim sites as quality. But I think your argument suffers from the same problem of perception as many other anti-dmoz arguments - you sort of see DMOZ as providing a service for webmasters, when in fact submissions are just a part of the way we find sites to list. Since we're not a listing/reviewing service, we're not (as far is I can see... IANAL) an advertising service either.

    It would be a very dodgy precedent to set if you succeeded in your case - from that moment ANYONE who says the slightest nice thing about something that is a felony would be prosecutable... I can just imagine FBI agents waiting outside cinemas, arresting anyone saying 'wow, those dudes in Ocean's 11 are WAY cool'!!

    :D
     
    bradley, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  13. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #973
    I think it's pretty clear that you have at best skimmed rather than actually read through this long thread. Your questions have been answered in detail.

    There are at least three issues:

    1. the question of illegal or quasi-illegal sites, like the pro-pedophilia ones, being listed in DMOZ

    2. the issue of why, given it's proclaimed mandate, DMOZ chooses to promote internet porography at all, let alone those that promote illegal activities - this is in part a moral issue, but actually it's less a moral issue for me than a business issue from the standpoint of DMOZ as an "authority" site with human editors culling the crap from the net and listing only the best of the best - that is the "quality" part

    3. the issue of multiple (dozens or more) of listings for single sites within the Adult categories, leading to the public perception/conclusion of preferential treatment to certain adult sites and site owners and/or rampant editor corruption in those categories

    As usual in a DMOZ thread, I see a few DMOZ or ex-DMOZ people like brizzie and vulcano and to an extent pagode facing the issue dead on and acknowledging that it is a problem. I see most who are here like you defending the status quo, or much of it - rationalizing against all logic why it should be the way it is and should be allowed to remain the way it is. That astounds and appalls me because the only way one can do that, even given what has been revealed in this thread alone, is to plant the blinders firmly in place and refuse to allow any input from reality to penetrate the rose-colored fog in which certain editors seem to have immersed themselves when it comes to all criticisms of DMOZ.
     
    minstrel, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #974
    :D LOL with joy, you tell them, bro.

    There is much more that can be done but the above will be a good start.

    Love and hug. :D :D
     
    gworld, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  15. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #975
    I think on this first issue we all agree. They should not be listed. Internal DMOZ we are now establishing where the line between accepatble and not-acceptable for DMOZ must be.

    As we only look at the not-illegal parts of Adult I don't see a problem with DMOZ listing these sites. I think we can agree that we disagree on this point. That is OK for me. I respect your opinion. I hope you will also respect my (and DMOZ) opinion about this.

    This is also being discussed intern DMOZ. There is only a big difference in what you (and other people including some DMOZ editors) see as a site [what is called domain by DMOZ/Adult] and what is seen as a site by DMOZ/Adult and the Adult business as a whole [what you probably would call a deeplink]. We understand the problem and we understand that this gives the perception of preferential treatment. Which is not good as these multiple listings from the same domain are not meant to be preferential treatment.
    What I have seen from the internal discussion both camps have good arguments why the current situation is Ok or why it isn't.
     
    pagode, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  16. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #976
    Adult business as a whole? :confused:

    Please show us any reference that shows adult business as a whole sees this question the way you describe. This is a lie and total nonsense. If your reasoning was true; wouldn't big producers have only one domain with different sub sections? Why do they will have the cost and the problems of maintaining hundreds of sites with different specialties?

    The only people who see this question the way you describe are DMOZ editors. Why? Because it is much cheaper for them to have only one domain and the cost of hosting for one domain and list it 50 times than having 50 domains.

    There is no good argument for so many links to the same domain, except benefiting the owner of that domain and it makes me wonder why the poor innocent "volunteer" editors are so interested in financial well being of bad bad porn affiliate webmasters? ;)
     
    gworld, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  17. EveryQuery

    EveryQuery Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    366
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #977
    So someone listing dozens of his own sites while the rest of the world waits 3 or 4 years to get reviewed, that isn't necessarily against DMOZ policy. Why do you think there is so much corruption with DMOZ? Hell, who wouldn't want to be editor if they can list all of the sites they own or are affiliated with, their friends sites, their clients sites, etc.
     
    EveryQuery, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  18. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #978
    http://dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

    The Open Directory prides itself on being a free, non-commercial and open resource for the Web community. Selecting, evaluating, describing, and organizing all web sites fairly and equitably are key components of the editing process. We rely on the philanthropy of our volunteer editors, and strongly discourage anyone from accepting or soliciting any form of compensation for their participation in the Open Directory. Additionally, we discourage submitters from soliciting or bribing editors in exchange for listings in the directory. Editors found to be accepting or soliciting bribes in exchange for listing sites or unfairly promoting these sites over others will be removed from the directory.

    Everyone is welcome to apply to join the ODP, including those who own, maintain and promote websites. Editors may have business or other types of affiliations relevant to the categories they edit, and may add their own sites or sites with which they are affiliated. However, it is contrary to the goals and policy of the ODP for editors to add only their own or affiliate sites, to engage in self cooling or other forms of self promotion, or to exclude or disadvantage a site that belongs to a competitor for the purpose of harming the competitor. Inappropriate actions may include excluding competitors' sites from the directory simply because they belong to a competitor or intentionally editing their titles or descriptions in a manner that distorts their content or diminishes the chance that users will find or view those sites.

    In some cases, an editor's business affiliation overlaps their involvement in the directory, such as with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals and Professional Content Providers (PCPs), whose participation may benefit both the editor and the directory. Instances when the involvement is mutually beneficial are acceptable, however, the primary focus and goal should always be to serve the best interests of the ODP and the editing community. Conducting unfair and deceptive activities to promote and support client listings will result in removal of editing privileges.
     
    sidjf, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  19. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #979
    sidjf;

    "In response to your question, do I think that I have an integrity and fairness in dealing with sites, so I won't be influenced by my own interest? YES, I think so.

    Would I ask you or anyone else to trust me based on my own opinion? HELL NO.

    If I was in charge of any organization and I was in position of trust, I would implement so many procedures and so much openness that no one in the world could question my integrity. Words while are nice, can not be the guaranty for integrity, only actions can."


    Gworld from previous post in this thread. :)

    The lack of openness and proper procedures has made DMOZ policy to nothing but bunch of words.
     
    gworld, Feb 6, 2006 IP
  20. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #980
    Apart from what I have said internally before and also above, there is another factor. And that is that with a one site per owner rule far more owners would be represented. Instead of mining numerous, sometimes hundreds, of links from the same source editors could be finding, reviewing, and listing numerous links from far more diverse sources. And if the owners got the message and started doing their own navigation instead of letting DMOZ do it for them that would give the users far more choice.

    That was a feeble excuse in December and it hasn't changed. Adult editors know full well what is meant by a site in DMOZ terms - they can't make up their own definitions just for Adult galleries. Though actually they can and they have unfortunately. It is a block of related content from the same owner - it may be a sub-domain or it might be several domains. You may list several sites with different owners using the same domain for hosting purposes or you list one domain out of hundreds from the same source - it is not DMOZ's business to provide the navigation or to cater for how a business structures its web presence to maximise its marketing.

    No. I did 23,000 recorded reviews, nearer 50,000 including editing actions that don't appear on editor stats (reviewing spam before it reached a listing). I listed say 6 sites with which I had some form of association. But what if it had been 100. Would that be wrong? Fact is thousands upon thousands of websites got listed and I have no idea who the owner is - for the most part the owners were about 10,000 miles from where I live. And that is a modest record. 95% of sites are added by 5% of editors with typically tens of thousands of reviews to their name. An editor who exclusively lists only sites with which they are associated is acting abusively and will be evicted.
    A lot of people who whinge continuously about their sites not being listed and don't get off their butts to do anything but complain about editors not doing free web marketing for them. I'm afraid.

    I would say a good 50-60% of editors join to list their own site - it is a honey trap though and a good number get hooked. Without the hook of being able to list your 1 site in that first category you are granted it is likely the overall number of listed sites would be a couple of million less than it actually is. So it is a balance. Plus DMOZ would be a lot more naive as an organisation if it did not include webmasters who know the marketing tricks and can spot them.
     
    brizzie, Feb 6, 2006 IP