More fun with DMOZ.

Well at least the correct information is there for the normal visitor to DP to make an informed decision that gworld is unable to read and comprehend the English language.

 

He provided a link alright - to the page that has my post:

Oh yeah - that really proves his earlier statement. Now I'm really convinced that he can't comprehend English - anyone else laughing?

 

lol, your attempts at manipulation are so transparent. Your game has been obvious from the moment I started posting here, as I'm sure it is to everyone else.

Whenever someone agrees with you at all, you load them with praise and talk about how they "get it". Esentially putting them in what you apparently think is the "cool group" (you and gworld, what a group). If anyone disagrees with you, you harrass and riducule them as much as possible - thereby creating a huge gap between the "nice minstrel" and the "mean minstrel". The point of course being that people will only want to see the "nice minstre". On top of this, you pick a person, apparently at random, and attempt to make them the outcast through constant harrassment no matter what they say. You chose lmocr for some reason, even though 99% of her posts have been the same as mine and compostannies. Then, whenever someone disagrees with you, you can group them with the outcast (as you have done with me a couple of times now). Your goal, of course, being that the person you are grouping with the outcast will agree with you just to avoid the harrassment you give to the outcast.

The biggest fallacy of your game is that most normal people would be proud to be grouped with either lmocr or compostannie. Both of them have proven to be upstanding and honest people. You and gworld, on the other hand, have proven to be nothing other than self interested trolls who want nothing other than to pick fights with people because of whatever grudge you hold against the ODP.

You very often post compelling and interesting points. I always wonder if this is by accident or just part of your game - an attemt to earn trust. One of the reasons I have kept posting here is that I wasn't sure until now if some of you (specifically minstrel and gworld) had any honest desire to actually see improvements in the ODP. If so, I thought this would be a great opportunity to get some outside perspective and fresh ideas.

After seeing the recent behavior of both of you, I'm sure that your only desire is to attack dmoz and its editors - at any cost.

Anyway, it's been entertaining to say the least, but I don't see any reason to continue in the constant back and forth here. You have no desire to see anything other than what you want to see.

 

Aquarius is spot on. Only an idiot would give gworld any credibility at this point.

The randomness and of complete lack of basis for the relentless attacks on lmocr have been shameful.

I've felt resource-zone was an embarassment to all editors for years. A lot of us have, so we came here to talk to you with respect, like you've asked and even demanded. I'm finally starting to "get" resource-zone; you people only want to abuse DMOZ editors and run them off so that you can complain that we won't talk to you. To my shock and horror, you've got me wondering if I owe a lot of resource-zone volunteers an apology.

 

Have the last few posts actually got anything at all to do with the matter being discussed ?

 

Just had a refreshing shower. It should be absolutely clear to anybody ever posting or reading this thread, that it is not only the question of cleaning up the pedophiliea category, but Adult in total. Some editors and also people from outside, seem to be interested in seeing some changes happen. Motives might be different, depending where one comes from. Unless there is solid proof e.g. for corruption or other fishy motives, I am not interested hearing about rumors and hearsay. These necessary changes, don't justify the means for getting there, nevertheless I appreciate any reasonable participation from all sites for getting there.
Might help to immagine what would happen, should those debated 35 listings (legally listed according to current guidelines) be put to unreviewed. One thing for sure, we would not be that lonesome anymore, a small group discussing forth and back. We would have the chance discussing those issues with real disgruntled porn webmasters running all over the place in herds from DP to RZ and internal ODP threads, asking for site status checks.

 

Text to above post with all my PM to Annie that is posted in this thread.

I let users decide who is playing game and as I mentioned in my previous posting, users here can be the judge who has credibility.

It is sad that you have decided to join sidjf and lmocr when any intelligent or at least honest person can see how ridiculous their defense of such DMOZ listing is and they think attacking me is their only way give the practice of listing such pages an ounce of respectability.

 

You are not talking about "English" here - you are talking about "DMOZ English" - idiosyncratic definitions of terms that magically turn doorway pages containing duplicate images into original content for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the "guidelines", aka justification for listing trash.

This is laughable. But it is the best description I have yet seen of how DMOZ ensures compliant editors and how they "reprogram" those like Annie who look like they may be "misunderstanding" the party line.

Annie, this is exactly what I was trying to warn you about:

You have been sucked in by the DMOZ smokescreening and bafflegab. I am truly sorry to see that happen.

Good example of an anagram: It makes no sense at all until you rearrange the letters or words. In this case, you then get something that does make sense: "Gworld is spot on. Only an idiot would give Aquarius any credibility at this point."

Only insofar as they are attempts to distract attention from the huge problems in DMOZ Adult.

Spot on, as usual. Please take note, lmocr, sidjf, and aquarious: There are some DMOZ editors who get it - it is not only "disgruntled webmasters" who can see the problems.

 

The problems in Adult are not bigger and are not different from the problems we have in other parts of the directory. The only huge problem we have in any part of the directory is the number of spamming webmasters.

 

It is not "DMOZ English", it is "Adult editors English". DMOZ guidelines are quite clear that such listings are not permitted as it is shown by my postings.
It is the same vocabulary that labels you corrupt, if you fight the corruption.
They are not very good in math either, because at least 20, in adult editors calculation means 15. is it because the main site that these pages are affiliate for, only provides 15 images on that topic for affiliates free download?

 

Thanks for that Resourceless Zone post, aquarius. It tells everyone reading this thread exactly where you are coming from. Your work here is done. You can drag your butt back to RZ now

 

You are correct, of course. My apologies to all of the DMOZ editors who are not part of that charade.

 

Ah, but the internal discussions tend to get absolutely nowhere as they transferred to the Adult forum where many non-Adult editors do not like to go and Adult editors who wish to maintain the status quo have a tendency to band together and make any progress on change impossible. And where compromise is rewriting a block of text to say exactly the same thing as it said before using a different combination of words.

Absolutely they are far worse than most areas. Because when it comes to say travel or gambling or financial services or shopping affiliate sites there is no reinterpretation of guidelines - they are gone when they are reviewed. Other branches do not list adverts for phone sex lines on the spurious grounds the advert has 15 very similar photos of some porn actress. Other branches do not arrive at their own definition of a "site" so they can legitimately list dozens of closely related pages with minimal numbers of porn photos from the same owner. Other branches do not give a consistent impression of editor abuse via imaginative interpretation of guidelines when it comes to image galleries. Other branches do not reward abusive editors, once caught, by retaining all of their abusive listings of multiple related sites. Other branches do not have internal guidelines that appear to override general guidelines and which are so off-mark editors from other branches find it impossible, even with years of experience, to tell abusive editing from someone following Adult "rules". Some of the editing decisions applied by Adult editors would have editors in other branches removed in minutes but in Adult it gets you more editing rights because the normal indicators of abusive editing are suspended. In every other branch descriptions must be objective and the prohibition of the use of promotional language, keywords, and emotive terms is strictly enforced and the editor using them warned and sometimes removed but in Adult that policy is entirely reversed so what comes out is marketing filth full of Adult keywords. The reason for all of this? That is apparently what users of Adult sites expect and want. I dare say the users of knitting sites might expect more promo-speak but that is not what DMOZ is all about. It is about objective descriptions of content not about promoting the site. What is the real reason? Being a cynic I don't buy the what the users expect/want argument when that is completely invalid in every other branch. Draw your own conclusions about the alternative reason.

And the worst problem with Adult? Any other editor who complains vigorously is immediately labelled as ignorant of the Adult web industry, belittled, and basically has their competence in commenting undermined.

Aquarius - if you truly believe Adult has no more problems than any other branch then believe me you have not looked into it in any depth. Just look at logs and see exactly how many editors there have been removed over the years. Apart from Adult the major problems with DMOZ are not with spamming webmasters - most experienced editors can ignore them - it is with declining editor numbers leading to increasing poor quality control with listed sites and failure to address inconsistencies and poor wording in guidelines that mislead webmasters into thinking DMOZ is some kind of free marketing tool. Blaming spamming webmasters is an old line that frankly doesn't work any more, though when most editors reviewed all sites submitted in date received order it was pertinent. And is dangerous if, as an editor, you fall for it and as a result ignore the true issues facing the Directory. The spamming webmaster trick has been overcome by selective reviewing of suggested sites and more focus on other sources of listings.

The answer, I believe, is to remove the Adult galleries from public view, then roll back the guidelines to the basics that apply directory-wide, then debate any additional rules which would need consensus of all editors bearing in mind that appearance of abuse devalues the work of every editor.

As to trading insults between editors and DP members I don't see the point really. A lot of it is down to mutual misunderstanding of motives. Sycophants have traditionally not done very well in DMOZ promotion stakes and editors should not assume that every anti-DMOZ comment is founded on commercial interests. Excluding Adult the vast majority of DMOZ is free of corruption and vested interests, and editing guidelines are generally applied and enforced notwithstanding a creeping quality control problem and declining resources. I don't criticise because I hate DMOZ - I criticise because I love the DMOZ concept and would hate to see it self-destruct though ignoring real issues and failing to accept and do something about its flaws. Strangely I feel it far easier to express that concern from outside and that in itself isn't a good thing for the directory. And I know I am not alone - discouraging dissent is the surest way to make sure mistakes are made and not corrected.

 

Exactly! Thank you, brizzie. Another excellent and informative post.

Also very true. I would point out, though (and I'm sure this is consistent with your own experience while in DMOZ), that many new or junior editors aspiring to loftier ranks assume that a sycophant will be be looked on more favorably than a non-sycophant who questions the status quo - perhaps not without reason.

 

Very true.

Whenever I have looked at accusations of corruption posted in SEO forums, it seems that 99.9% of the time those accusations are incorrect. Editing logs shows clear and good reasons why sites are or are not listed.

However when it comes to accusations of corruption in The Adult category, it appears that at least 90% of those edits are questionable. Sites offering free picture that in fact all lead to the same pay per use sites, multiple listings etc. The problem is that after looking at the sites, I need to ge deloused. . It's not a place where I want to be, and this applies to many other editors. The result is that Adult does not get the same peer counterchecks that other parts of the directory get. And the exceptions and exemptions are arbitrary and designed to promote someones agenda.

The sooner that Adult is dropped, the happier I will be. I'd hard to defend ODP against claims of corruption and bad editing as long as it exists.

 

A tip for those new or junior editors then... when I was a lowly editor with no additional rank I was really no different to how I was when I left. Always willing to open a can of worms, debate and defend my position strongly, intolerant of those who based their position on rank as opposed to reasoning. Instead of being suppressed and ejected I was promoted to editall. Of course, that was in the days of the Editor in Chief, not a committee of Admins, but I have also seen more recent opponents of Admin policy promoted with no indication that it was in exchange for silence. On the other hand the decision making (as opposed to debate) is getting more and more concentrated in the Admins rather than the community as a whole, which I fear is a negative movement.* The route back from that is to experiment with more polling to get real feedback and restore the influence of the editing community over the direction.

The value of a sycophant is zero, perhaps worse than zero, and DMOZ management of whatever arrangement have always recognised that.

* it used to be that a debate was only futile if the one Editor in Chief interjected and opposed. And he would only do so and make a ruling in a few carefully chosen debates. Now a debate is futile if one of eight Admins opposes and they will have an opinion on most debates. In addition, the method of interjection is less subtle in many cases, strongly discouraging further debate. So most debates on any topic of any importance are irrelevant once an Admin has spoken.

 

And again it shows clearly what the real intent of many people complaining about the adult guidelines is. They want adult to be removed. Adult entertainment was and is a large part of the internet and as such should be represented in DMOZ.

 

It does not in the least and again that is a very tired response. And 100% typical of internal responses to any concerns about Adult by the way. Clean up Adult and bringing it into line with the rest of DMOZ and no-one would have any case against Adult - if it did not appear to be a cesspit of abuse as a result of past actual abuse proven by removals and imaginative guideline interpretations then most of the opposition left would indeed be that favoured target of blame, the corrupt webmaster. And the arguments are primarily against Image Galleries not most of the rest of Adult. If you can't have a branch that acts within general guidelines and consistently fails to accept how embarrasing it looks and change then yes the answer is to remove it altogether and focus attention on more productive parts of the directory. But cleanup would be much better.

 

But adding to brizzie's comments, I would ask "why"? That is the same scary argument that was used to justify listing pro-pedophilia sites -- "there are pedophiles everywhere so in the name of free speech DMOZ should promote their websites and chat rooms to give them a greater voice".

Where do you draw the line? Many people rape, assault, steal, murder, torture, and mutilate others every day - should DMOZ be working hard to promote and endorse websites giving those people a voice?

It's a simple-minded, ill-conceived, and just plain stupid argument - and it's a very dangerous one.

Maybe there is an argument to be made for the Adult categories (or some of them - I will not buy any argument that seeks to list pro-pedophilia and pro-rape sites, or anything like them). But the one you have suggested is clearly not it.

 

The examples given by minstrel were on the extreme but there are more down to earth examples. There are entire classes of site that are already banned but which are a big part of the Internet - affiliate schemes of every conceivable variety for example. Because they do not add value to the DMOZ concept, not containing sufficient unique content of any quality. A favoured trick of many a commercial webmaster is to split content over several domains and try to get each site a separate listing. Except in Adult such tricks, when uncovered are dealt with punatively. In Adult they are rewarded with multiple listing, legitimised by branch guidelines that are not always even written down.

Being a big part of the Internet has never been and never will be a reason for representing any industry on DMOZ. The only criteria is whether it adds to the value of the project.

Where Adult varies is this. In Shopping if a garden furniture site splits itself into 15 sites each with 15 photos of products in a particular category then there will be 15 rejections, red URL notes attached, and someone might if they are so inclined look for an umbrella URL they will list. If they listed all 15 domains they would be very lucky to keep their editor account. In Adult not only would such activity not be met with the same response but it will be rewarded with 15 listings. There is no possible valid excuse for ignoring the guidelines that make the Shopping branch response the right one according to the hundreds/thousands of editors who edit in that and other non-Adult branches. The fact that common practice in the garden furniture web sector is to split URLs to make things sooo much easier for a user trying to find decking without having to wade through parasols would be laughed out of the internal forums and the editor suggesting it would be watched very closely. But in Adult?

No-one has ever satisfactorily explained why Adult should have any exemption from the same rules that apply to garden furniture or any other kind of commercial product. Or even the works of artists come to that. The fact is there isn't any exemption for Adult but they do it anyway. As far as I am concerned in breach of guidelines. All that ever comes back is "you don't understand the Adult web industry" (I do, it is to make money via aggressive web marketing same as the online garden furniture site). Or "all you want to do is remove the whole of Adult for moral/personal/other motives" (No, I want Adult to fall in line with Directory guidelines and follow the same rules as everyone else). Or "the way we classify is of benefit to Adult site users and we are here to serve the users" (so would splitting decking from parasol pages on garden furniture site be of use to gardeners but that isn't acceptable because, it is ruled, that would not add value to the project by common consensus).