DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Looks like DustyD has been busy.. "Who's ya daddy!"

Sorry, couldn't resist!

 

Does this mean that I am not a total conspiracy nuts and my previous postings showed actual corrupt editors?

Please show me how does DMOZ stops this from happening instead of just calling it conspiracy theory.

I am a positive person now. It is all just a big mistake and not even those who brizzie admits were abusive editors were really corrupt. Their mistake was just bigger than other editors mistake. Let's gather for group hug to all DMOZ editors and show them our love. Damn, it just feels so good to be positive.

 

Thanks for clarifying this, Minstrel.
And glad you have "come over" brizzie.

 

A complex question to answer really because it is more why I stayed than why I joined. I went to add my hobby website to Google's directory and it led to DMOZ. I read all the guidelines and realised my site wasn't up to scratch so I went back and rewrote sections. Then noticed the invitation to edit, suggested my own site and a couple of others and joined. 23,000 recorded edits and as many unrecorded later and it was time to leave. I edited mainly in Regional and in a country I loved from a 3 week visit, so it was a 3 year virtual vacation. You get a hell of a buzz from completing projects like listing every school in a state or every art gallery in a country, at least I did once I got hooked, and it can be a compulsive activity. And generally other editors are a great bunch, I made some good friends, I was sad to leave them. Towards the end I was doing virtually 100% of the editing time on quality control on affiliate hotel booking sites - tedious in the extreme but necessary and I doubt many others had the inclination. But I still had fun - editor-in-chief of the DMOZ Free Press (DFP), a satirical and libelous commentary on the twice a year editor awards. Which ironically won editor awards. So from Best Editall to Official Clown in a couple of seasons.

 

lol...thats funny as hell

 

Can you say.... rejected?!?!?

 

The damn DMOZ Nazis have people everywhere: White House, Congress, Slashdot...

 

You have been told numerous times that editors had been removed who were proven to be abusive in the Adult branch, editors who listed sites you referred to. Hell, since you have been peddling the same line for years it may have been information from you that helped to remove those editors. But you persist in insisting more or less every editor from top to bottom is corrupt and, quite simply, that is complete crap. There is a legacy of previous corruption in Adult and poor guidelines that permit those dreadful multiple listings of adult galleries - issues that are serious failings IMO, but that does not add up to corruption amongst serving editors.

No. Why would anyone share information that would help anyone get multiple accounts. I know enough of how it works to be persuaded the controls work most of the time even though the details are rightly confined to meta editors. But generally I was referring to the multitude of editors I have worked with - mostly the experienced and senior editors who police the system and contribute 90-95% of the content of the directory. You get to know them, exchange emails, even meet some in person.

Now you have me worried. It is no secret inside or outside DMOZ that I have a major problem with the impression given by the Adult branch and several other issues surrounding that branch. And I have never been one to blindly follow doctrine without expressing an opinion. I'm not saying anything here that I wouldn't have said inside. So I'm glad to see many of you guys come over to my way of thinking.

 

I was watching a documentary about Goebbles the Nazi propaganda minister on TV and it seems he was a very romantic husband and very loving father. He also disagreed in different subjects with Hitler and the rest of Nazi party and as far as I am aware he didn't kill anyone by his own hand except when he committed suicide. Does all this mean that he was not guilty of any crime committed during WWII? A person can not avoid responsibility for the actions committed by a corrupt group that he/she a member and actively supports just because he/she personally did not commit those acts.

I never said that all DMOZ editors are corrupt because it will be stupid to say all 8000 are corrupt. I always said that there is an active and powerful group (limited number of members) that have the real power and they will stop any change. However, there is another group of editor who actively participate in different forums in order to defend the corruption. These enablers of corruptions are as guilty as those who commit these acts independent of if they are corrupt themselves are not.

In summation: If you go down to the gutter, don't complain about getting some shit on you.

May be you don't want to say because there is nothing to say. One of my old time favorite TV shows X-file used to start with "The truth is out there." and you will be surprised how many people know about it.

But this is new positive me and I am sure everything is just a big mistake and nobody is at fault, so love and hug for you, bro.

 

Thanks for your response Brizzie, I appreciate your honesty. I apologize for my comments made in my previous post and would like to offer more band-aids for your health condition I have caused .

I have learned alot in this thread. I really didn't know that 3% is considered a good acceptance level. However, the sites I have submitted in the past are not all my sites...as part of a service I will try and get my clients a DMOZ listing...probably close to 1000 over the last few years. VERY few of them get accepted and I am trying to get insight as to WHY? You have helped me understand more and I appreciate it .

Would I be correct in assuming that most editors have a full-time job, then. Making DMOZ editing more of a hobby? I hope I'm not too far off-topic here...I think this thread has elevated from the 'Child-Porn' problems to a more global DMOZ thread which I find more useful to me, besides I got a chunk of red for my last post stating 'BS'...guess I deserved it. To clear things up I DON'T support child porn I was merely trying to make a point and perhaps went about it the wrong way...my apologies.


Thanks again!

 

This has been an interesting read, but I have one question.

Has anybody here actually bothered to fill in the authorities? You would think they would be all over the DMOZ categories long ago, but that's only because DMOZ is something you think about regularly, not the cops.

Shouldn't every child pornography site submitted in the queue be reported? Isn't that the only decent thing to do?

Even if you are a porn junkie editor, I would think you have to have some moral backbone that gives you a sense of obligation rather than helping to promote the world of child predators.

 

DMOZ gets away with a lot.

 

Can I add that to my sig here, preceded by gworld says...

Hey that is movement, big movement. Thanks.

There, you do understand DMOZ. There is an active and powerful group of maybe 300-400. Called editall+ - includes cateditalls, editalls, catmods, metas, admins. And before becoming one of this group the individuals have to prove themselves, beyond reasonable doubt, as being completely lacking in corrupt tendencies and first class editors. One or two sneak through but it is very difficult to get that far and be corrupt. I know or know of most of them and they are all different people working in every profession you could think of in every country you could think of. A less likely bunch of conspirators I couldn't imagine, though no doubt you could before you were reborn

Ah, now there you have it wrong but it is only a minor error in an otherwise faultless performance to that point. Remember, they eliminated the editors whose corruption you pointed out.

I have never ever heard an editor defend corruption. Or defend quality control issues come to that. They might tell you that the corruption you imagine is a quality control issue. Which is the truth. They might tell you the corruption you imagine is real and the editor dealt with. There was the corrupteditor who defended corruption. And was ejected. If you spot an editor defending corruption then report them please.

Absolutely. Any editor defending actual corruption is not fit to be an editor. And these people are not tolerated by other editors. Fact. But pointing out that an editor who acted corruptly has been removed and pointing out that what appears to be corruption isn't, isn't defending corruption.

If you get back on topic and the existence of child rape supporters sites being listed on DMOZ then if it is not fixed then I would certainly say that is a resigning issue. Because I would not want to be associated in any way with an organization that would do such a thing and consider it acceptable in any way, shape or form. But so far no-one from DMOZ has been here and defended the category or sites, though a couple have ignored it completely because some have given them easier questions to answer - who knows yet whether it will live or die. But trying to somehow connect a fact - the existence of a child rape supporters category - with unsubstantiated speculation - corruption - is foolish in the extreme. The mere existence of the category is so abhorrent on its own it does not need obscuring with unsubstantiated speculation. It is not corruption (you can't prove that), it isn't a mistake (someone deliberately put it there), it stands on its own as sick and nothing can excuse it. But the more red herrings you throw into the pot the easier it is to lose sight of that one very simple issue that needs no embellishing.

Don't tell me, you've been an alien abductee and know for a fact that DMOZ is actually run by short skinny grey creatures with big eyes who are trying to take over the world by spamming the Internet with X Files affiliate merchandising stores. And all the other alien abductees know that for a fact too.

gworld says "I never said that all DMOZ editors are corrupt because it will be stupid to say all 8000 are corrupt" - looks good.

 

Great post brizzie, but I think I have given you green already today!!

 

Thanks for that riveting insight, Toots.

I think we can safely close this thread now. Problem solved.

 

That is what the guidelines say to editors about child porn sites. But there are different legal definitions of what an illegal child porn site is. The US, it appears, requires actual images. Whether sites advocating pedophilia and providing somewhere for child rapists to chat and network is illegal in the US I don't know. But then I don't care really, in this case it shouldn't be a factor in the decision to remove the category and the sites. It is a matter of common decency and common sense not to give any encouragement whatsoever to child rapists.

 

I agree with that, I think that AOL could face lawsuits on this and all the search engines could see giant awards given to parents that find out that their kids became victims as a result of a simple search

 

You know I was just sitting here continuing to digest this information and a question came to me...If I am an adult webmaster and submit my site to DMOZ, get accepted, then change the content to child porn, how long before it's spotted? Do editors also frequently check these sites I wonder?

The Op posted a link to the WHOIS lookup which doesn't show the actual category cherryboys dot com is found in? When I query DMOZ I get no listing found?

 

time to check archive.org

 

That is often then explanation for bad listings. Sometimes it's true, sometimes the editor slid one by