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 issue

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by Cristian Mezei, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. fathom

    fathom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #21
    Well - remove it then... honestly it will not change my opinion.
     
    fathom, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  2. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #22
    Missing the point again, fathom... :eek:

    By the way, I missed the UK page but this similar Canadian page by macdesign is still live... has been for about a year now, with the only change being to remove "proicing for single listings", as far as I can tell... :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  3. fathom

    fathom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #23
    I get their point - I disagree with it. Is that wrong?

    I don't see the parallel?

    Where is it listed?

    A quick look at the content the owner is suggesting [I think] a better alternative for status check.

    As I understand DMOZ does not entertain status checks anymore - but I suppose if someone comes up with a superb 'non-labor intensive plan' maybe it will be looked at. But I don't believe it is endorsed by DMOZ?
     
    fathom, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  4. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #24
    :confused:

    Where is what listed?

    macdesign is a DMOZ editor who has been offering information on DMOZ submissions for a fee for some time. How is this different than the UK site offering information on DMOZ submissions for a fee?
     
    minstrel, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  5. fathom

    fathom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #25
    1. site isn't listed

    2. I don't know who the editor is... "macdesign"?

    3. if not an editor - I suppose they can offer consulting advice for a fee - but I highly doubt they'll get rich on it.

    with a Frontpage template they can't be doing too good. ;)
     
    fathom, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  6. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    4. The information offered by macdesign's site is readily available to the public.

    5. No editor notes are used by macdesign's site.

    6. Anyone who wants to take the time to design a program and utilize the RDF dumps in this manner is more than able to.
     
    lmocr, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  7. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #27
    7. apparently, making a profit by selling information to webmasters about their DMOZ submissions is OK for some editors and not OK for others
     
    minstrel, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  8. fathom

    fathom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #28
    8. It makes for good ping-pong fun on DP anyway! :D
     
    fathom, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  9. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #29
    9. This site is not giving out any confidential material (at least, it isn't claiming to).

    The arclid site was selling the content of editor notes - that is against ODP guidelines.

    This site uses the publicly available rdf information - http://open-directory-status.com/background.htm

    macdesign could provide this service whether he were an editor or not.
     
    sidjf, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  10. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #30
    I've heard all the excuses before. He's still profiting from his position as an editor and apparently a lot of other editors see nothing wrong with that.

    Oh well... that's not the biggest problem with DMOZ by any means, but it's one of the many...
     
    minstrel, Feb 28, 2006 IP
    Cristian Mezei likes this.
  11. fathom

    fathom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #31
    For all clients I submit their websites to the appropriate category, use an appropriate title, description, and help enhance their website to the point that 'someday' when they get reviewed - their chances of inclusion might be better.

    I don't guarantee any results nor guaranntee any inclusion - I do guarantee "I will do my homework and I will do the work"...

    Is it wrong for me to be an editor?

    Is it wrong for me to submit websites?

    Is it wrong for me to use by editing skills?

    I did note this though on the site in question:

    That pretty much covers everything.
     
    fathom, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  12. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    Based on the evidence we both have (unless you know something about the site that isn't apparent), that's just not true.

    The information he is providing is from the rdf which is available to anyone that wants it. he is not providing any information that is available to editors only, therefor any profit he makes is not related to his being an editor.

    This is, of course, based on the only information I have available to me, and that's what is on the site. Based on that, you're simply wrong on this minstrel. But it looked mighty suspicious to me at first too. Someone else had to point out to me the "background" page as well.
     
    sidjf, Feb 28, 2006 IP
  13. popotalk

    popotalk Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    522
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #33
    As said, this covers everything minstrel. The ODP has fully explained this on its Disclaimer / Limitation of Liability. The ODP has no part in this.

    Hence, what is wrong here is that if the site owner is an editor or has an inside editor who gives information, a co-relation of corruption is visible. They are making money on information they supply from the ODP whether accurate information or not. Technically no information shall be given with regards to site statuses. This situation is unfair for honest editors who make editing as part of their hobby. A hobby is what you do on your precious free time regardless of circumstances but when you are giving out information that overshadows the purity of a hobby and sells or distributes somebody's rights it is considered business and a corrupt editor. By law ODP and its internal information is its property and should not be distributed whether in whole or in part.
     
    popotalk, Mar 1, 2006 IP
  14. popotalk

    popotalk Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    522
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #34
    As said, this covers everything minstrel. The ODP has fully explained this on its Disclaimer / Limitation of Liability. The ODP has no part in this.

    Hence, what is wrong here is that if the site owner is an editor or has an inside editor who gives information, a co-relation of corruption is visible. They are making money on information they supply from the ODP whether accurate information or not. Technically no information shall be given with regards to site statuses. This situation is unfair for honest editors who make editing as part of their hobby. A hobby is what you do on your precious free time regardless of circumstances but when you are giving out information that overshadows the purity of a hobby and sells or distributes somebody's rights it is considered business and a corrupt editor. By law ODP and its internal information is its property and should not be distributed whether in whole or in part.
     
    popotalk, Mar 1, 2006 IP
  15. Cristian Mezei

    Cristian Mezei Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,332
    Likes Received:
    355
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    213
    #35
    Glad to make these people public. I will do that whenever i find them :)
     
    Cristian Mezei, Mar 1, 2006 IP
  16. popotalk

    popotalk Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    522
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #36
    Appreciate it very much and thank you.:)
     
    popotalk, Mar 1, 2006 IP
  17. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #37
    Finally, an editor who gets it.

    macdesign is not giving this information away for free. He is selling it. And he is a DMOZ editor.
     
    minstrel, Mar 1, 2006 IP
  18. vulcano

    vulcano Active Member

    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    63
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    #38
    minstrel, agree that a well known smell is there, giving a certain impression. From what I saw in his signature here at DP, I was always wondering what you were talking about, when complaining, though.
    Thanks for providing that information.:D
     
    vulcano, Mar 1, 2006 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  19. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #39
    The only reason that anyone would think corruption is because minstrel keeps harping on it (harping seems to be one of his favorite activities).

    The FACT that the information is available to individuals who are not editors, doesn't prevent an editor from being able to use it. That this editor makes any amount of money from this service is no different than the fact that any editor makes any amount of money.

    There is a significant difference between the site the OP found and macdesign's site - the first used internal information and the second uses information available publicly.
     
    lmocr, Mar 1, 2006 IP
  20. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #40
    This is a very important distinction. Granted it's on the edge, and personally I wouldn't go that close to the edge, but imo macdesign does not cross the line. I looked very closely at his service and at him as an editor because of this site but honestly, I can't find a single thing that points to corruption. He uses NO confidential information at all and therefore is not relying on his position as editor to offer this service.

    I'll go as far as to say I think macdesign's service is totally worthless since he doesn't use any inside information and therefore isn't providing anything useful. Basically, he's offering to gather public information for anyone too lazy to go look themselves. If he wasn't an editor he could still offer the same service. The difference would be that instead of accusations of corruption, his service would be dismissed as worthless.

    (Sorry macdesign, just my humble opinion.)
     
    compostannie, Mar 1, 2006 IP