DMOZ Editors Accept Bribes? Lets Review Objectively

Many accusations and remarks have often been heard about DMOZ editors taking bribes or getting paid to get a site listed in ODP.

Are DMOZ editors corrupt? Is corruption in ODP feasible? If yes, what are the extent of corruption?

Lets review it objectively. Please note that I am not a DMOZ editor. Neither am I associated with any DMOZ editors nor am I representing ODP. Statements made below are based on my limited knowledge and experience.

(1) Are DMOZ Editors Corrupt?
There is always a possibility of corrupt editors in ODP. But yet again, isn't such cases common even in the political world. There are always black sheep amongst the crowd. However these cannot be generalize as ODP itself or a representation of DMOZ editors. Furthermore, we have also heard cases that such editors are dropped from their ODP status.

(2) Is Corruption In ODP Feasible?
As far as I know, each Editor in Dmoz has access only to their own section/category and can't influence in anyway add/modify/delete other editor's list. Now, let's imagine that there is an editor in Dmoz, who's working on some company for money. In this case, he/she can only approve sites in his own directory. In best case, even if you bribe/hire 3 editors, your services will end up on 3 categories, which makes entire service useless and pathetic

However there are some editors that have privilges for the whole classic directory. That means they can edit in any category in the directory. This means that if there is a category that has a listed editor at the bottom then anyone who is listed higher in the category, or any editor that can edit in the entire directory can make changes in that category.

(3) What Are The Extent Of Corruption?
Considering the above, it is quite safe to make a conclusion that YES, there might be some corrupt editors but the system makes it hard. Having many editors that can edit in any one category will certainly put a halt or a check mechanism on those few corrupt editors (if any) from manipulating a certain category to their advantage. Hence from my opinion, if there were to be corruption, its remote and chances are "they" will not last long in ODP


Yet again I stress that my information above might be wrong... I hope not

 

http://www.shoemoney.com/2007/08/26/dmoz-extortion/

I rest my case.

 

This system enables users of the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) to report suspicions of abusive editors/conduct to DMOZ meta editors and staff. (If editors want to report abuse they should use the form linked from their dashboard).
Quote from here
http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

We are on constant alert to try and ensure that we do not have corrupt editors. If you suspect one the link above is for you to report them and every report will be investigated thoroughly.

But be aware that sites and webmasters have been banned from ODP for life for attempting to bribe an editor and a few editors have been expelled for corruption.

 

You have it exactly right, frederrick. I would add that the honest editors hate corrupt editors because it makes all of us look bad, and it's our responsibility to keep our eyes open for corrupt editors and report them. As soon as they are discovered, they get the Golden Boot and are banned from the Directory.

Many of the lies that are spread about us come from some of these removed editors, and from outside individuals who got caught trying to either bribe an editor, or spamming the Directory.

Your case has no merit, n-james. AOL staff answered that allegation here:

http://blog.dmoz.org/2007/10/08/why-hasnt-my-site-been-accepted-into-dmoz/2#comments

Anyone can make a popular allegation, but, before it can be acted on there needs to be at least a smidgeon of proof that can be followed up on, otherwise, it's nothing more than an unfair lie which this obviously was. Show us proof and it will be acted on. I don't believe everything I hear on tv either.

3 bribes were offered to me over the last 6 years, and 3 individuals and their sites are now banned from the Directory, and I've seen editors removed for cause, though those reasons or even that removal action itself, is not shared with the editing community. It's a private matter between the editor and those who remove the editor, and that's the way it should be. Let people have a little personal dignity when they're asked to leave, there's no need to drag an individual through the mud.

 

A bribe? No, that will likely result in getting the site banned. However, a bribe is different then getting paid to list a site.

That is covered here: DMOZ as an SEO/Linkbuilding tool, as claimed by an editor!

 

No one gets paid to list a site. They may get paid for building a site or doing SEO work, but they don't get paid to list the site.

Any editor can list any site, from any source, if the site qualifies to be listed in the Directory, whether it's a site they own, built for someone else, or have done SEO work on, but they have to go to extra lengths to remain unbiased in their editing, because they are wearing two hats, what they do in real life to make a living, and what they do as volunteer editors.

These type of editors have a higher level of trust to maintain and are probably watched more closely. Just because both hats go hand in hand doesn't mean they should ignore a qualified site that they happened to own, build, or worked on, that wouldn't be unbiased editing, it would be a reversed discrimination, and these people can't add a site to a category they don't edit in, they can only submit it where it will wait right along with every other site submission in that category.

It would not only be poor form to contact that other editor about the submitted site, it could be cause for an editor to be removed. In 6 years of editing, no editor has ever asked me for a personal favor like that, and if they did, I would inform the meta community so they could investigate.

 

And don't forget to add, crowbar that all sites with which you are affiliated have to be declared so that if someone does list a lot of sites that are not of listable quality it is easilly monitored. So you have to find someone who does build sites, who is able to list sites across the directory, so has worked hard for the directory and risk their editorship, in an easilly tracked form.

Editors are booted and sites are banned, beware if you try any route that is not legitemate.

 

No editor "owns" the categories they edit in, they merely have editing permissions there. Any editor with higher or wider permissions can edit in any category beneath them, whether there is a named editor for a category or not, and these editors can and do edit the sites there, whether it's a spelling error, a misplaced site, an inappropriately added site, or category structure work that needs to be done.

So, no editor ever has complete control over a category, there are hundreds of other editors who have access to that category.

Added - And what editor Anonymously said.

 

You've had an entire thread on that, it's silly to reinfect every thread with the same point that stems from poor reading skills. The guy didn't make any such claim and even the part you quoted doesn't fit your premise. There's a lot more to the rebuttal, but as we already had the conversation in the thread on the topic I won't re-repeat it.

What you think is a smoking gun is just evidence of public school quality problems in rural Tennessee.

Bottom line... please don't recycle your garbage to raise your post count. ~ Thanks

 

I am sorry that I was mislead into thinking that there were no paid listings within the ODP. I thank you once again for pointing out that I was wrong in the matter and that people can hire SEO professionals to get a link within the project.

And from my understanding, my post is well within the confines of this thread, as the topics are rather closely related, in as much as both are about paid listings.

Now who is trying to show themselves off as an expert in a field they are clueless about? I did not go to school here, so please stop trying to be an expert about ex-editors. You got re-instated remember, so it's clear you know nothing of the topic.

Though, as I know you highly dislike it when people are discussing things outside of their expertise, I would not mind seeing your credentials for knowledge over the public school systems in this area.

If anything this thread is a duplicate, so if you have a problem with recycled garbage why focus on my post? Oh right... you like me.

Now what are your views on the topic at hand, or did you just post in this thread to get me to reply?

 

Naah, made my point. Not interested in bantering with you... total waste of time.

 

Hi,

I think what you are saying carries the same meaning. Making a bribe or paying for a site to get listed is the same.

But perhaps you mean "paying a service to prepare a site for a better chance of a successful submission to DMOZ"

There are several companies out there doing the service and there is nothing wrong in that as long as you do not cross the line and get in contact with any DMOZ editors to serve your pupose exclusively.

 

Not really.

A cop gets paid to serve and protect, though can get paid a bribe to go "above and beyond" the call of duty. Likewise, an SEO professional can get paid to list a site in DMOZ, though may consider it a bribe if asked like "I'll give you money if you list me in DMOZ". It's a thin line in this case, but the line is there. While most editors do not get paid at all, those that have a link building job do get paid to build links...and DMOZ is a great place for such building.

Either way, the guidelines say that it's OK as long as the link is worthy, and a few editors also seem to agree.

Read the thread I linked too, and re-read the guidelines.

That would likely be the best route though...and something that would likely not be considered crossing lines any way it's looked at.

 

But, happily, whilst you might not understand the difference,Q, editors do. But then again you would not wish to see things as an editor would you? Sadly you have preferred the route of exaggerating and twisting to try and make sure that you can spin this against ODP. Jusdt as you have raised this old chestnut many times to try and tarnish ODP editors and the directory I have answered you many times and so don't intend to do so again here. And you can howl, that means you are corrupt and so is the directory if you like, but just read mine, and others previous comments. I have to say, Q, your getting boring.

 

Just how have I twisted anything, and how am I not seeing the difference? it really seems to me that you are refusing to see that I am actually seeing the difference. And yeah, I bet you think I am boring. I am really finding you the same.

Coming in behind me saying that there is a difference between getting paid and bribing, right after I say there is a difference between getting paid and getting a bribe.

Editors have answered me many times, and the answer HAS been that editors can get paid. The question keeps getting brought back up...and then it all gets confused because when I answer I get people like you following me around telling me I am wrong, then saying the exact same thing. How are people to learn if they keep getting conflicting answers?

Here is an editor saying that getting paid is OK: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4875478&postcount=67

Here is another editor saying it's OK: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5025123&postcount=126

Here it is within the ODP guidelines:

In some cases, an editor's business affiliation overlaps their involvement in the directory, such as with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals and Professional Content Providers (PCPs), whose participation may benefit both the editor and the directory. Instances when the involvement is mutually beneficial are acceptable, however, the primary focus and goal should always be to serve the best interests of the ODP and the editing community. Conducting unfair and deceptive activities to promote and support client listings will result in removal of editing privileges.
SOURCE: http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html]​

If that is not enough proof to back up my "claims" then I am unsure what is...

So getting paid to list sites IS acceptable, but bribes are not... is that truly a sign of corruption? No, not really, but it kind of does go against the grain of the directory being 100% free], and that does seem to lend itself to corruption.

 

It seems to me that you are writer, not reader.
You can allways build brand new directory with paid sites.
ODP is not such one.

Hope that although my poor English this become clear to you

 

Once more into the breach my friends, once more.

Yes someone who has been paid to build a site may if the site is content rich enough offer that site to an ODP category of if they have edit privs in the category list the site. If they have built the site they have to declare that so that any sites they list can be mintored to ensure that the editor is acting evenhandedly with those s/he has links with and those not. The editor should not be touting for business to list sites and if someone asks if they are willing to be paid to do SEC work and list the site it is corruption.

So anyone can be paid to build and if they then wish to list it they can, but that is different between you saying that you can pay someone to get listed and is within my book of it being a free directory.

the spin you want to put on is to suggest to people that they seek such people if they want to pay for a link, it is the spin which says it is not free. It is the spin which brings it up like spew every time there is a mention of the directory being free or telling people not to sek to pay it will be construed as bribery to suggest it is common and that webmasters sort of routinely do it. So yes you get boring by the repetition of the warmed up sick.

 

So what you are saying is that I bend and twist the guidelines to my own ends, even though they clearly state what I've said? I'm sorry that I have mislead people into thinking that they can pay for a link because the guidelines said so... though honestly, who is really to blame for such things? Me for quoting from the guidelines, or the guidelines that say it's OK?

I've just linked to two named editors saying that such paid listings are OK within the directory, and have given a link to the guidelines themselves that back up my "twisting" and "spinning" is it really any wonder that people get confused?

Some editors seem to say that it's OK, some seem to say that it's not. *shrug* So I guess if you guys can not agree it falls back down to the guidelines...

Are you saying the guidelines are wrong?

And what is wrong with seeking out people that can build a site worthy of being listed? I mean, the more sites the better right? And who better to build a site to be listed in the ODP, then an ODP editor Though, I'm not talking about just building sites, I'm talking about the other aspects of SEO work, such as just link building. Paying an SEO professional that just happens to be an ODP editor for link building services can result in a DMOZ listing.

Is that bribing an editor? No, that is paying for SEO services ~ and that is OK. Does that make the ODP editor corrupt? No, not as long as the editor is truthful of his work and that he or she is putting the ODP first.

 

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. - William Shakespeare -

Now seriously - its better discussing with minstrel, than with you

 

Enough said!!