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.

More fun with DMOZ, II

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by gworld, Mar 30, 2006.

  1. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #41
    This is not about equipment, it is about organization and procedures. It is about the will to fight the corruption instead of present attitude that labels as corrupt and trouble maker anybody that tries to fight corruption.

    It is about openness and democratic decision making process instead of secrecy and cutting out the volunteers participation.
     
    gworld, Mar 30, 2006 IP
  2. Las Vegas Homes

    Las Vegas Homes Guest

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #42
    This is what it should be about but instead it is about those editors who can make the most money directly or indirectly from the way Dmoz is controled presently.
     
    Las Vegas Homes, Mar 30, 2006 IP
    pagode likes this.
  3. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #43
    It would take an essay the length of a doctoral thesis to explain the intricacies of legitimate multiple listings of related sites and deeplinking. It took me 18-24 months to grasp the concepts fully and my suspicion is that full understanding is limited only to a few hundred editors.

    If you are talking about Adult Image Galleries then please qualify what you say to indicate that. Full understanding of that one is probably limited to a handful...

    Only Meta editors approve new editors and for what you suggest to work effectively it would need to be relatively institutionalised and systematic, and therefore common knowledge amongst senior editors. That, if you knew some of the Meta editors who would scare the pants off the Spanish Inquisition, isn't feasible.

    It isn't impossible that a senior editor could be corrupt - editalls and metas have been removed in the past but I cannot see how the scheme you suggest could go unnoticed - another meta would pick up on several of these new editors at some point when they put a foot wrong and a pattern could easily be traced back to the approving meta. The area of the Directory you are talking about has very few active editors and they are under tight scrutiny given past problems. And you have missed the key point. There is no need for a meta editor to engage in the risky business of accepting fake new editors when anyone can legitimately list crap deeplinks using the rules that are being applied in that branch in any case. There are loopholes that mean things can appear corrupt but actually be within the rules. The rules need changing and bringing into line with the rest of DMOZ to close the loopholes.
     
    brizzie, Mar 30, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  4. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #44
    LOL. I perfectly understand why some big organization can be listed by multiple links, I meant these worthless listings in adult that serve no purpose except benefiting some people. ;)
    I think the editors argument in Adult is these listings are beneficial for us, so we have to find excuses to keep it.


    I think you know me enough by now to know that I will not claim something if I was not sure about it and done my research. The system is so easily fooled that there is no pattern to be noticed. You are talking about the possibility that in some distant future it is possible that everything can come out but as the system is at present time, that chance in my estimate is less than 1%.
    What is the most usual excuse for multiple links are not abuse? the links are approved by different editors. To have that possibility of denial is always good. ;)
    But you are right in some way, the way that adult editors are translating the guideline by "Adult editors translator", it is possible to list anything but those loopholes will not be closed as long as DMOZ structure has not changed to make it open, honest and encourage the volunteers to participate in decision making process.
     
    gworld, Mar 30, 2006 IP
    compostannie likes this.
  5. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #45
    I just checked the DMOZ internal forum and one of the admins has given a good explanation (for those able to read the forum it was posted on wednesday) why these deeplinks are listable according to DMOZ guidelines. Some editors (most not being able to edit in Adult as far as I can see) have agreed with this explanation in their postings. Only one (also active at DP) did not approve this explanation.

    If editors want to express their opinion they can do so in the DMOZ forum where it will be read by the other editors. (postings made at DP will be read only by the few editors and the non-editors around here).

    Gworld can make as many threads about how sites have many deeplinks and the fact he don't like it but it won't make any change. These deeplinks are listable in DMOZ.
     
    pagode, Mar 30, 2006 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #46
    Why don't you share with us, the BS explanation from the internal forum, so everyone can see the quality of such explanation. :rolleyes:

    It is not surprising that some of senior editors think these type of deep links should be listed, since it is beneficial for them. In fact, one of the posting is quite reveling about the editors motive, when that person is crying about that if they stop deep linking then adult webmasters must buy a new domain for each link and it becomes expensive.

    On one side all webmasters are spammer and the lowest of the low and on other side, they are so worried about webmasters profitability and DMOZ should list the way that is beneficial to them. :rolleyes:

    If adult webmasters (editors) were sure that these sites listings are according to DMOZ guideline, they wouldn't need to hide the discussion in adult section, would they? ;)
     
    gworld, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  7. maldives

    maldives Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,187
    Likes Received:
    902
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #47
    DMOZ or the forum members? I am tired of reading same stuff again and again :eek:
     
    maldives, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  8. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #48
    You are an editor yourself (atleast that is what you claim). And as such you should know that it is not allowed to do what you ask.

    There is no hiding. It just works the same as DP and any other forum. At DP you may only discuss DMOZ releted topics in "Digital Point Forums > Search Engines > Directories > ODP / DMOZ". At DMOZ forum you may only discuss adult related subjects in the Adult forum.

    And Gworld, thanks for your red rep but couldn't you find anything better than to call me "dumbass". You realy disappoint me. :rolleyes:
     
    pagode, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  9. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #49
    You can reword that BS in your own words, you don't need to quote directly. sidjf already tried to push that kind of "explanation" on people in this forum but it doesn't work here since people are much more knowledgeable.

    This discussions are not about the specific discussion about a web site, it is about what is considered "norm" in adult and the amount abuse that is going on in that section, therefore it effects all members. The discussion of what is deep link and what is acceptable can be in general section but this is not acceptable to adult editors because people will start to laugh at their crazy excuses.

    I didn't give you red rep, other wise I would have find much better words than dumb ass to call you.
     
    gworld, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  10. ryan_uk

    ryan_uk Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Best Answers:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    465
    #50
    No, it wouldn't help. Someone can just have a friend submit biometric data each time it's required.

    Such as a sponsored naked run by all dmoz editors? The threat of that would make people donate so it doesn't happen.

    But a serious note on how to solve corruption [in dmoz]: a truly open system so nothing can be hidden. This doesn't mean any personal details would be revealed about x, y, or z's identity. This does mean everyone can understand reason for a editor's actions. Due to the fact that an editor's reasons will be visible, it makes it a lot harder to edit/add/reject/ignore for an unjust reason.

    Not that this would be in the interests of the ... "decision makers".

    There are 24/7 supermarkets (such as Wal-Mart, Asda (yes - owned by Wal-mart but still Asda for the most part in the UK) and Tesco) for any editor/fan[atic] out of dmoz Canned Responses (tm).
     
    ryan_uk, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  11. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #51
    Everything an editor does is already visible to all other editors. That is as much as is needed. I know many webmasters would like to see this kind of information. But that won't happen.
     
    pagode, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  12. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #52
    I already did.
    But I'll repeat for you.
    Listing deeplinks is allowed by editors.
    Sites are allowed to have advertisements. But they must have enough content beside these advertisements to be listed.
    DMOZ editors will decide if a site/deeplink has enough content worthwhile to list the site/deeplink.
    The listings within Adult/Image Galleries are acceptable under (current) DMOZ guidelines.
    You can read yourself about the deeplinking guidelines ( http://editors.dmoz.org/guidelines/site-specific.html#deeplinks )

    I know you don't agree with these guidelines and listings so no need to tell us again.
     
    pagode, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  13. ryan_uk

    ryan_uk Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Best Answers:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    465
    #53
    I know that [it's visible to other editors].

    I should have been more explicit as obviously a "truly open system" is obviously lost on you.

    "dmoz editor's actions would be openly readable why the world." Is that more clear to you?

    Where did you buy your can of responses from? :rolleyes:

    It won't happen because the "decision makers" don't want to stop the corruption. There's no other valid reason, don't bother with the usual canned responses.
     
    ryan_uk, Mar 31, 2006 IP
    brizzie likes this.
  14. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #54
    No, it won't happen because we don't want the corrupt and spamming webmasters to know. Because of this all the other webmasters (I think there are much more honest webmasters that there are corrupt/spamming ones) won't get the information either.

    If you think me telling you the truth about how DMOZ is working are canned responses than that is your problem. I'm not going to tell you lies just because you don't like and don't want to accept the truth.
     
    pagode, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  15. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #55
    No other valid reason? Are you sure? What about the danger of exposing editors to psycho-killers, stalkers, and lunatics of all flavors? Nope, I wouldn't like that at all, and it has nothing to do with corruption.
     
    compostannie, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  16. ryan_uk

    ryan_uk Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Best Answers:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    465
    #56
    As you wrote, "there are much more honest webmasters that there are corrupt/spamming ones", so just because a small number of people submit their sites multiple times, submit junk, or some dmoz editors want to take pay-offs or don't want competition for their sites, that's a valid reason not to have an open system? OK.

    Putting aside dmoz's internal corruption, it really doesn't matter if so-called "corrupt and spamming webmasters" know that their site have been rejected due to spam. What impact is that going to have? They make a decent site that's no longer spam and is now legitimate? Oh no, that would be a terrible thing to happen. Or someone's a hardcore spammer so they keep resubmitting ... I'm sure (!) dmoz has some basic spam filtering, at least... or so one would have thought.

    Telling how something is working and the reasoning behind why it works that way are different. The reasoning is same old responses with nothing to backup the "it won't happen" other than the weak "don't want to know". This is the canned response. :rolleyes:
     
    ryan_uk, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  17. ryan_uk

    ryan_uk Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Best Answers:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    465
    #57
    Just because a system is open - well rather than write it again, as I wrote: "This doesn't mean any personal details would be revealed about x, y, or z's identity." I.E. the person can remain anonymous to the public, other than known by a nickname - just like on a forum!

    Given anonymity can be retained, but reasoning edits/adds would be visible, that's a non-issue.

    Take a look around at the existing open projects, and some are of commercial value. The CVS is browsable, Changelogs are visible to everyone, open development lists, IRC discussion channels on development, etc. And no-one is killed over their involvement in such projects.

    One example, which most people know, is the Linux kernel.

    But obviously, dmoz would rather hide ... safe from eyes seeing what's really going on.
     
    ryan_uk, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  18. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #58
    :confused:

    Are you even reading the threads here?

    We KNOW they are listable according to the rules of DMOZ Adult. That isn't the question. The question is WHY - and why the rules in Adult are different from the rules elsewhere.

    That has been repeated here ad nauseum - how could you miss it? :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Mar 31, 2006 IP
    ryan_uk likes this.
  19. pagode

    pagode Guest

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #59
    Why what?
    Why they are listable according to the guidelines? That would be a stupid question.
    Why the guidelines allow these listing? Because DMOZ editors decided in the past, and still agree, that these are the guidelines we want to use to build the directory.
    As you pretend to know so much about DMOZ you should recognise this piece of text.
    The guidelines for Adult are the same as they are for all other parts of DMOZ.
     
    pagode, Mar 31, 2006 IP
  20. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #60
    Unbelievable. :eek:

    Filed under "Too stupid to breathe on his own without someone there to remind him or a note written on his hand."

    :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Mar 31, 2006 IP