In some cases this is not true brizzie. This have been done with intent and as I have said the SEO is in California. It was on their affiliated declared green site. (Written as possible affiliate site of...and in green)
I am at a loss to explain why certain things in DMOZ happen as they do. Part of the problem is intense secrecy so you never know if you are adding two and two and making four, or four hundred and twenty five. Fact is that there are many things about DMOZ that do not add up but there are not many facts beyond that. Corruption is one theory; my own experience in discussions with Admins is that inexperience and incompetent project management play a large part. I also suspect, and I put it no stronger than that, that there are things Admins can do nothing about but are nevertheless obliged to somehow defend in public, hence explanations you can drive a coach and horses through, blustering, extreme defensiveness, etc. If I were in that situation I would resign on principle, and one Admin already did that. There is some evidence to back that up but its a long story for another day. By maintaining that intense secrecy any and all speculation, no matter how close it might get to the truth, can be easily dismissed and it is impossible to prove decisively anything else. My suspicions may therefore be spot on or way off target. The whole system relies on editors trusting the integrity of a group of highly respected metas promoted to Admin. Following Topix, then more recently the pedophile listings debacle, I personally have no trust in them and from discussion with other (serving) editors I don't think I am in any way unusual in that. I personally believe that most of the Admins are good people with good intentions who have got in way over their heads. And I dare say that this is something that was anticipated otherwise the appointments would have been made from people with extensive business management backgrounds and experience. If you were to stick me on a stand with a pile of bibles and ask me if I thought they had been somehow compromised in their principles then I would have to say yes. Then that is abuse. You have to be sure that there is a pattern that cannot be the result of being baited and the site then switched or the result of genuine mistakes. You do that by painstakingly going through the editor's logs, pick out the affiliate or spam sites listed, then find out how the sites were submitted or whether they were editor-added. IP addresses of submitters and trace them back. Try and find a connection between the editor and any of those sites - it is amazing how many traces get left on Google indexes. If you suspect high level collusion then make sure your log investigations can't be traced (remember that pages have visitor logs). There really is no other way of trapping a clever corrupt editor other than to patiently collate the evidence. You can then either report it to an Admin or publish the results publicly without identifying the editor (editors could easily trace him or her). You need to make it watertight and that is not always that easy. By green do you mean a green note - one that says in effect deeplink at will? And you know it is owned by an editor and who that editor is, not just a guess/speculation?
I would not touch anything anymore rather than the information I gave and its not speculation as I have stated it long ago when I stepped in Regional and that was even the first thing I had posted in internal forums and no one gave a crap. I just kept my mouth shut but was very outraged as nobody gave a crap. So how would you think I report it as abuse when even in Internal Forums nobody takes a glance.
I did. That is why I don't believe in the Abuse Report anymore. I even reported something to a Lady Admin and nothing happened.
It doesn't surprise me. But not for the reasons you might surmise. About half the reports I lodged were successful but not the others. It is a question of the quality of the evidence. It has to be watertight with no way out especially if the accused is a senior editor. Contrary to what happens with regular editors who are wiped off the map with no explanation, should an accusation be made against a long standing and respected editor then they will almost certainly be asked to explain about something without revealing that they have been accused of abuse. If the reasoning is credible then it is likely the case will be closed. You can see from my explanation above how meticulous your trail of evidence has to be. I don't know the site, I don't know who the editor is, I don't know what the note says, and I don't have access to the logs to tell who did what, when, etc. What I do know is that editors have had permission from Staff in the past to multiple list sites other editors considered spam. Topix is one such site. So the editor concerned in this case may have sought and obtained prior permission. Since no explanations are given why an abuse case is closed either way, you cannot know this. If I were still an editor I would go through the logs thoroughly and give you an opinion but I'm not. Perhaps another editor you trust might do that for you. PM me the URL of the site, it might be something I can give you an answer to quickly - not that quickly though, I'm away on business for the next 24 hours.
So it means that they are "UNTOUCHABLES" then ? That is an outstanding way of categorizing DMOZ as Republic of the Web and categorizing it as a Definitive Catalog of the Web same as an Oxford English Dictionary. Since that is the case, if it is declared as Republic of the Web and I am a Net Citizen they should listen to my protest and not just disregard it and try abuse cases openly. Does the Oxford Dictionary has corrupt writers too ?
Absolutely, of course it does. Not only does it contain virtually every keyword ever invented but there are an awful lot of words that no-one has ever heard of listed. How do you suppose they made it in without a few pennies being exchanged? No, merely that if they asked the owner of the directory and the directory owner said yes then it ain't abuse. The owner of the directory, by virtue of paying the bills, can't be corrupt in that respect. They might anger the users of the site and some might leave (Topix caused the loss of an Admin). Of course they might exceed those permissions and if you catch 'em you have 'em nailed. Logs. Logs. Logs. One site is unlikely to result in an editor removal - you have to get a waterproof pattern. You don't actually believe that spin do you? Actually "Republic" is often used to describe a form of government that is non-democratic, sometimes headed by a junta. Maybe they have it right...
It is interesting to look at the length of your post and all the trouble that you go through to hide the only important piece of information. You know it and I know it that corruption and abuse inside the DMOZ would be impossible without the support of some admins and possibly staffs. Even different editalls and Metas that I have talked with, have confirmed this fact. That is the reason that corruption in DMOZ is systematic and part of DMOZ structure and it is not the problem of abuse by individual editors.
I am very surprised because I find Honorary People honorable and payed a lot of Money in extragavant schools just to learn corrupt words and learn them. I am glad that my children are in Public School. Then it can be done. All they need is hugs and kisses. Thats it. That was a Niagara Falls that I patterned. What's left then ? Katrina ? Ahh. Marxist then. Cannot be a junta as I am a renegade.
Umm isnt that the point? Unless you are an editor who is going to be checking my submissions to DMOZ then I do not need my statement "verified"! The fact is that DMOZ is losing credibility within a huge community which is NOT good for what is supposed to be a leading directory.
The point is to solve the problem. The current situation is not tenable since it detracts from the quality of the directory. Having all travel agent sites dealt with by a specialist group of editors, rather than by generalist editors who are making mistakes, would be one way of tackling that. Currently many editors will not go through travel services categories because of the spam - I was one of the few who would and I am retired from editing. I am suggesting a change to how these sites are handled from an editor perspective - anything that makes processing out spam in this area makes the chances of legitimate travel agents making it into the directory greater. I know for a fact that had all the spam been grouped together in one place it would have been easier to get rid of, and the legit ones would stand out a mile. The reason is because spam detection is largely about recognising patterns and if you deal with enough of them in a concentrated span it becomes almost instinctual. An editor who deals with one or two a year is not going to stand much chance. You made a statement and related it to your sites so whether or not your statement has validity depends to some extent on those sites, which you have not revealed. Depends which "community" you are talking about. DMOZ does not seek credibility of any kind with the webmaster community because the webmaster community is not a stakeholder in the DMOZ project. You could argue that having a highly selective listing policy that pisses off commercial webmasters interested only in marketing their sites means DMOZ is doing the job *it* set out to do. The problem with the travel agency listings is that it damages the credibility of the directory with the community it is there to serve, a community that is generally not represented here or any other webmaster forum - end user surfers and consumers. I used the term compromised for a reason. Corruption is only one form of being compromised. Others include bullying, blackmail, being threatened with violence, being threatened with removal, naivety or being bamboozled, brainwashing, etc. Who knows what lies behind some of the inexplicable actions eminating from the top of DMOZ. Some people reach the top of an organisation and find life there is not as straightforward as they thought - idealism might have to take a back seat to what can actually be practically achieved given immovable constraints. For example, effectively sorting out Adult branch might well kill it entirely and your remit might explicitely prohibit action that risks the destruction of an entire branch - no matter how much you want to solve it you can't and if you try anyway then you lose your position and are unable to influence other matters. Of course the result is that you lose respect. No win situation. My belief that Admins are somehow compromised is based on one very important fact - one Admin resigned rather than have his principles compromised. As a meta prior to that, had there been systematic high level corruption, then a man of those principles is unlikely to have accepted the position. The fact that the remaining Admins then did absolutely nothing to reverse the events leading to the resignation, almost universally condemned by senior editors, is an indicator that perhaps they were powerless to do so. It also proved that the self-managed editor community is to some extent a sham - it is certainly the point in DMOZ history that changed my entire perspective, and IMO the starting point of the decline of DMOZ as a whole, as I was by no means alone. Admins were shown to be ineffective and unresponsive to the community's feelings and the idea that the volunteer editors could in any way influence the direction of the project died at that point.
It sounds like organized crime, it seems some of the "senior" editors will feel right at home in Mafia.
www.equitour.co.uk The "community" I am referring to is the 'travel community' which this topic specifically relates to.
equitour.co.uk It looks OK to me on the surface but it is also a justtheflight.co.uk affiliate. I then googled some random text from one tour and found it elsewhere so concluded the other content, which was interesting and well written, was not unique. Affiliate + non-unique content = rejection. Of course, you may be fortunate and have the site reviewed by an editor who would not pick up on those aspects. Travel community from what perspective? Agent/Operator or surfer/consumer. DMOZ only cares about surfer/consumer and specifically does not give a toss about what agents and operators want from it. Editors (are supposed to) judge websites from a surfer/consumer perspective and only consider its value in that respect. It does not consider affiliate services to be valuable, nor is it keen on sites where the content can be found elsewhere. Of course the problem may be that someone has copied your site not the other way around but DMOZ can't make judgements on that nor does an editor have time to investigate in depth - 5 minutes, 10 at most, then move on the the next one (no accept or reject). You sort out any copyright issues with others who might have broken yours.
And you are an ex editor of DMOZ? No wonder it is such a f***ing mess!!! 1) Where is it a justtheflight affiliate? ITS CALLED LINK EXCHANGE!! This is NOT repeat NOT an affiliate site!! 2) As a licenced tour operator, equitour receives itineraries from various operators in their relevent countries. As do many, many other tour operators. Of course there is going to be duplicate content. Go check just about every travel agent and tour operator website and the 'duplicate content' is blatantly obvious. 3) You will find that the country pages are 'unique' as far as can be. For instance "Botswana is a country in africa and good for safari holidays" will probably crop up in a number of websites 4) If a site is deemded to hold duplicate content and is dropped is there no consideration to region? Most of the equitour competition where the 'duplicate' content is held are based in the US. Equitour's market is UK. DMOZ SUCKS! If a supposed leading directory cannot be bothered to check sites out propoerly then what is the point? Having read your posts and many others regarding alleged corruption and alike I dont think I want to be listed in DMOZ.
Yes we know, but DMOZ does not want to list duplicate content. That's what brizzie has been saying all along! The country pages could be more unique if you created your own content and didn't rely on your operators to supply the content for you as well as the service. Don't matter. Not as much as your attitude. You asked for an opinion and brizzie spent a great deal of time checking out your site and giving you his honest opinion. You forgot to thank him.
So why does expertlaw has six listings while the content is from other sites, is it because the owner is also a "senior" editor?