DMOZ Corruption according to Google

Credible ? Uhum. There are 200 or more Senior Editors Just take your pick.

Tell you ? Think crossman. Think.

Huh ?

Not in bottom. Top

 

Hang on for a mo. We are talking about someone who has made tens if not hundreds of posts complaining that the ODP lists nasty porn and blathering on about non-2257 compliant sites when his is actually affiliated with such sites. That this is not disreputable in your opinion that does not surprise me one bit. Calling it dealing from the bottom of the deck is the mildest slant one could put on it.

And who the hell is paulx?

 

Its true tens of thousands that ODP list affiliate and doorway pages. In Philippine Adult alone you have those. Why complain when its true.
FIY for so long now g-man has covered his tracks very well. A very smart move that not even 1 ODP editor has solve the puzzle and may never. If you think gworld is way smarter than you then just think about Metas and Senior Editors. Take your pick.

 

Now you have started blathering as well. It must be contagious.

 

Survey sayssss. I'm no PUPPET nor Milli Vanilli !!

 

Are you admitting that DMOZ list illegal sites, Senior editor abuse their position and list affiliate pages against guideline but in your opinion I should not complain about it because supposedly I have connection to these sites?

I thought in your previous post you mentioned that you will not tolerate the abuse and corruption in DMOZ but it seems clear to me and hopefully to everyone else here that you actually have nothing against what is happening in DMOZ and only don't tolerate people who expose the abuse and corruption.

Just answer the question about the number of sites and deep links and then try with straight face claim that abuse does not exist in DMOZ or it is not tolerated by management. Will it surprise you that only in one site that I checked in random, there was 25 deep links in DMOZ for a senior editor site?

 

Complain? Is that what you call it? You troll, bait, twist words, use innuendo and generally do anything but address the issues in a coherent way. Don’t give me this complain nonsense.

Here you are doing nothing to expose anything. You are just slinging mud. There are numerous ways to effectively channel reports of actual instances of abuse. And that information is gratefully received and acted upon if appropriate.

Not at all, there are many sites with lots of deeplinks. If those links are inappropriate for the categories, then that is abuse and I would like to know which sites they are. Are they spammy crappy deeplinks? Are they in a part of the directory where deepliking is unusual? Are the deeplinks of lesser quality than the other sites listed in the same category. If you answer yes to questions like this then it is likely to be abuse. If you really serious about exposing corrupt editors that is the sort of thing you should be thinking about rather than whining about senior editors have x number of deeplinks.

 

They can't. Most editors cannot and won't do that especially High level and Senior Editors. 1. They are afraid to argue with Meta and Admins. 2. Meta and Admins can just easily twist them on another direction. 3. Afraid to be locked out and lose their privileges which they worked hard for. 4. They can't win, but if they do it would still be up to Meta and Admins to make final decision.
Sample Admin-Meta Decision: Ok Senior Editor, I have prepared the guidelines and placed my modifications that best suites the category. I have included some of your suggestions. Good Job.

Just a pat on the back. Nothing from you.

Picture it like this, even in tabloids when 1 topic is in Front Page. It's HOT. TRUE or NOT as editors you need to investigate with OPEN EYES. Problem is you don't and cannot. Inside they will just sway you OFF TOPIC.

Where ABUSE REPORTS ? Look at your Monthly Report. Most facts are in decline. If this is what you call a hobby and defend that all editors will check at their own phase and own time. How would you deal with it ?

Are you a Senior Editor ? I doubt it Nebby Boy. Anyway spend some time checking Adult, Travel, Business, Shopping 1 by 1. Bit a bit. (since you all claim you are volunteers and time is own phase) Comeback in 3 months and let us know what you found. With all HONESTY

 

With all this rampant abuse that is so jolly obvious where are all the whistleblowers? 200 or so metas, they are all crooks not one of them is prepared to break ranks. Wow what are the chances?

What about you? When you were an editor you had access to exactly the same edit logs as metas. Same as gworld. Give us a meta A has listed a mirror he owned, meta B key word stuffed the title of his site and so on. If the ODP is so corrupt you must have hundreds of examples. come on don't be shy.

More illogical unsubstantiated clap trap. What about the 65,000 or so former editors?. Some gworld style innuendo, not an ounce of actual evidence of a large scale conspiracy? Or a medium scale one. Or even a small one. The control of the ODP must tougher than the mafia. You breaka the ODP code we breaka your knee caps.

I have seen many posts here about the systemic corruption within the higher levels of the ODP. Who is going to blow it wide open? With the 7000 or so active editors with access to the edit logs I'm sure this widespread corruption can be easily exposed.

 

OK. Nebbie boy. Since you are asking I'll give you a bone. There is a META that e-mailed me sometime ago not more than a month. I have e-mail address but won't de-classify as promised. We e-mailed back and forth and I will just give you some.

Have a nice day Neb.

 

You can read at Internal Forums as I do. Read and find out yourself.

None yet. It will come. Just wait patiently.

 

You are saying that the 7000+ editors who can read the forums are privy to coordinated (or a least ignored) abuse of the ODP. And none of them have the guts (or inclination) to do anything about it? By golly that makes this one massive conspiracy of silence. Good grief. Every time your finger hits the keyboard your claims become absurd.

And in so far as that snippet of email goes, what the heck does that have to do with this discussion?[That’s a rhetorical question btw. The answer is nothing what so ever.]

 

Excuse me. Again you are trying to make assumptions. There are no 7,000 + editors. There are about 2,500 active. Yes, and none of them have the spine to spill out ( I have some proof of Senior Editors that have e-mailed me and have asked it anonymously). Its not tolerated and you will be locked out. Try it Neb. Start with deeplinks in Adult and see what happens to you.

Nebby boy. I'm just telling you and our dear readers that there is a META that is in communication with me. Call it SNITCH or whatever you like it to be. At least (gender removed) is HONEST to voice out disatisfaction. (gender removed) should hang in there at least oppose what is not right.

 

The implausibility of that statement further illustrates your lack of grip on reality.

 

Ok. Nebbie Boy. Check this out. Is she active and included in that list of 7,000 + editors you say proudly. Check her logs. When was the last time she made an edit.http://dmoz.org/Regional/Asia/Philippines/Provinces/Pangasinan/ . I assure you I can find out more but that is just another bone for your satisfaction.

 

Um. Er. OK. Thanks for that. It was the implausibility of such a large number of editors all being privy to coordinated (or a least ignored) abuse to which I refer. It does not matter if it is 2500 or 7000. You really should concentrate a bit harder.

 

Ahhhhh but you wanted proof. I gave you 1. And you were asking of at least. Does it satisfy you now ? See what you asked.

 

Some editor in an obscure category has not made an edit in a month or two. So what? What it that supposed to prove? What medication are you on? Why am I bothering to reply to you?

 

Nebby, Nebby, Nebby. Month or two. Go back and look again. Read in Internal Forum. She quit voluntarily. So just to add some editors to Monthly Reports make it look good these kind of numbers are not included.

Proves that editor accounts is inaccurate.

Metformin. I have diabetes. How about you ? You are very repulsive person. High Blood Pressure ?

Because what I say is true.

have a nice day

 

The issue is very simple:

There is powerful, small core in DMOZ that threat the directory as their own private marketing arm. In order to preserve the power and economical benefit, they have to stop any process that tries to deal with abuse or increase the power of normal editors or implement new procedures that attract new editors and fix the problem with submission. There is no internal structure for implementing changes such as free discussions, voting system or if necessary the change of management.
How are you or anyone else is going to make change from inside when there exist no such possibility? The answer is simple, fight and you will be expelled or accept the abuse and corruption and stay on.

That is the reason that changes in DMOZ can be only implemented through pressure from outside.