DMOZ How To Get Listed?

A large number of sites you have previously pointed at as evidence of corruption in DMOZ were, when checked, listed by editors subsequently removed for abuse. But then you knew that before pointing at them because you have acces to the logs yourself. Of course the records show the existence of abuse in DMOZ but at the same time they also show editors who abused their position being dealt with via removal. The system working. Rather than demonstrating your point, they tend to point in the other direction - intolerance at high level of abuse. AFAIK no meta editor has ever come forward and provided any form of corroboration of your claims. And some have been removed with no chance of return so have nothing to lose. Still more have resigned quite noisily on far lesser points of principle. If you were right then after all these years you would have though one, just one, former meta would have blown the whistle.

Key word is IF. Hypothetical. Purely as an academic response, if your initial premise was true then your second phrase would be true also. But if your initial premise is way off the mark then the second phrase would not hold water. But perception remains the same in both cases.

 

There is no magic bullet for DMOZ, just depends on what editor you get and when they decide to actually look at your site. For the most part imho DMOZ is not something to worry about, just take your time and submit your site once and forget about it. If someday they decide to list you great otherwise no big deal.

Just my two cents...

 

Believe it or not, I never check the logs for finding the abusive sites. There is no need, it is so easy, it never takes me more than couple of minutes to find abusive sites for my examples through normal search that is available to everyone. can it be because there are so many of those sites?
In this forum, I gave an example of 5 listings for a sex phone service that were obviously abusive and I have also given many other similar examples before. As you know those sites belong to an editor and some of those listings are deleted after it was mentioned in this forum but that editor and Meta continue to be editor in DMOZ. do you really believe that they could stay as editors if they did not have support from some senior editors outside of the adult?

 

Don't you think that checking the logs would be useful in determining whether or not abuse had been detected and dealt with? You complain about abusive editors being, in your view, tolerated, and ignore (presumably because it doesn't suit your agenda) evidence to the contrary. By all means nail DMOZ where is does wrong but do so honestly.

You say obviously. And it is hard to defend. That is the way it looks and most editors, if they were being honest, would agree at face value. This is a huge bone of contention as far as I am concerned - editing practices in Adult that have developed which appear to allow this sort of thing to happen legitimately and is therefore not technically abuse regardless of giving every appearance to the contrary. That was the whole point of various internal issues I raised in December of last year and the root of my opposition to Adult image galleries - if you can't reform, get rid. I'd be interested in an (objective) update on progress towards Adult reform. If the adult listing practices are clarified, brought into line, and applied then, and only then, have you got clear recourse against allegedly corrupt editors who do not comply with the clarifications. Until then nothing is actually obvious, just unnecessarily murky and suspicious looking.

 

The sites were still listed at the time that I used as an example, so how was the problem dealt with?
For all practical purpose such as deep linking, back links, serp,.. the abuse was still ongoing.

Blah, blah, blah,... those listings were against guidelines and subsequent delete of listings after I mentioned it, proved the point. The editors were not dealt with because of the support of "some senior" editors outside of adult. Please let us not kid ourself and make this about unenforceable guide lines and "accepted" practices in adult, you know editors have been removed for much less.

 

Gworld so how the small number of abusive website listings you or anyone anywhere pointed out measure up compared to the millions of useful non-abusive listings?

 

Does this mean that you support corruption and abuse as long as it is in small doses?
Has anyone checked all the listings to really measure what percent are abusive listings? How about abusive practice of not listing sites that should be listed?

 

O-boy, Gworld you know how I play this forum discussion game, I’m not answering your questions until you answer mine. Stop running away from my questions. Since you suggest abuse is so rampage in dmoz,

Gworld so how the small number of abusive website listings you or anyone anywhere pointed out measure up compared to the millions of useful non-abusive listings?

 

Don't you have some homework to do or something, crossman?

 

Define abusive listings. All listings added by editors proven guilty of abuse? All listings of unlistable sites regardless of whether it was abusive or human error? Only listings of unlistable sites by editors proven guilty of abuse? Listings of all sites by editors suspected of abuse maybe? Something else? Paid-for listings maybe?

There are 500 million listable sites not listed. Every editor is guilty of abuse by not listing them? Or are you referring to abusive rejections - they happen. But sites can also be rejected by mistake, is that abusive?

 

All listings that should not be listed or the listings are manipulated againts DMOZ guideline. Let's count it first, you will always have the chance to make the excuse of human error later on.

All the sites that are rejected or left in submissions lines forever even if they qualify for listings. As usual, you can blame it on the human error as the excuse later on, let's count it first.

 

Gworld, I don't know what you want counted but any counting that happens will have to be done by volunteer editors. Since you're the one who thinks taking a count is so urgent you should go do the count, no one's stopping you. If you don't mind would you please check the editing logs wherever you find abusive editing and let us know the details if you come across any done by current editors so we can get rid of the editors who are responsible for the abusive editing while we're at it?

Thanks for taking this on.

 

I await the results of your count with interest gworld.

 

It is being added all the time, I can't count fast enough.

That is the reason, we need procedures that stops adding abusive listings before we start to count how many are there already.

 

Don't worry about that, there are already plenty of anti-abuse procedures in place you are clearly unaware of. So just start counting.

 

Well, as you are aware I am not found of unenforceable guidelines, I prefer to wait for enforceable anti-abuse procedures that actually have some effect before I start counting.

 

First you demand a count, then you say you can't count, then you say you want to wait!

Do not justify and find an excuse for not doing the right thing because the setup of the category is not properly categorized and doesn't make sense. (gworld)

Just do it. Or do you approve of abuse?

 

856789.

Now what are you going to do to stop the abuse?

 

I'm going to go through them one at a time and deal with them just as soon as you pass along your list of URLs. Do you expect anything less?

 

A small minority then, nothing to really worry about. According to gworld's research 85% of sites listed are fine and dandy. Thanks for restoring my faith in the integrity of DMOZ gworld.