DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

And we certainly appreciate your contributions. Even gworld, in his own sick and twisted way, probably has genuine respect for you. Hell, I hate I been sending you all those anonymous red reps throughout the duration of this thread....

 

The editors are still here, they are just afraid to go on record in this thread because AOL & Google are reading along!

 

So according to you posters in DP are not stupid, only manipulative and vicious. Did you come to this conclusion because we don't like to spank naked young boys, have sex with corps or animals while looking at autopsy photos?

It was funny to call your fantasy explanation about DustyG statement as truth but do you care to explain how DustyG managed this miracle of technology to scan all cherryboys pictures with a scanner that is built in his head and then run a scan and pattern recognition on hundreds of thousand of other images to determine that those content are unique?

There is only 2 solution to his statement, either he is the original photographer and is certain that he did not use those images on any other site (which I don't think so), or his statement was a lie in order to defend DMOZ policies.

 

Speak for yourself, gworld. That one site with the rather ugly, fat, naked man cutting up a corpse (including chopping his head off) and then "scronking" it, wallowing around in all the blood, was quite exciting. I can see why DMOZ would choose to list such sites. Nothing like a directory that lists "quality" sites.

 

You guys are not going to get any editors to post in this thread because I think they have been ordered not to post here because of possible legal action that could take place.....

So all the bait in the world is not going to work.....

 

I don’t know if being on record will change what actually needs to get changed. This discussion here is quite revealing and information presented here has caused a few important editors to take a closer look at the problem. You can not assume that any editor at DMOZ will even remotely support child porn. The presence of Adult section in DMOZ is a much bigger and intricate issue. Adult entertainment, no matter how despicable, is part of society. Keep in mind; I did not say illegal adult entertainment. Due to the fact that Adult branch in DMOZ is a very uncomfortable area for most editors, quality control is not as stringent and frequent as one would like. This may change in the aftermath of current discussions inside ODP. pagode has promised to keep you updated and I am certain that he will.

 

riz;

From your post, I can only imagine that you are a DMOZ editor and as such you have taken the first important step in trying to fix the problem, admitting that problem exists and it is not just one big misunderstanding. we need honesty from DMOZ editors and not policies of defending DMOZ at any cost.

In order to make my views more clear for you and anyone else , first I must say that I do not hate DMOZ and I am not against porn or find it despicable. hell, I even have playboy channel on my cable and while I don't watch it very often, it is always good if you have a late night female guest.

What I hate is the corruption inside DMOZ that while benefiting a small group is destroying the work of others that do this as volunteer. I hate the fact that this group is so powerful that can stop any change or implantation of policies that can stop misuse and corruption. I hate the fact that DMOZ is used to push the type of garbage that is much more than simple porn and enjoying individual life style choices but aims at hurting innocent people.

 

Hmm, I would have thought differently from your postings here. But I can be wrong.

I have been told that you are running some pornwebsites yourself and have been rejected listings for your sites because of spamming the directory with sites that do not follow DMOZ guidelines.

Strangly enough in all my 6 years as an editor I have never been able to find this 'small but powerfull group'. There have been editors misusing their postition (often called corrupt) but those were always indivuals (as far as I know) and they have been removed. If there are still editors misuding their position (I have no reason to believe we are free of corruption nor that we will ever be) they will be found and removed.
But there is no group of editors capable of stopping changes. I have found DMOZ to be one of the most democratic organisations I have ever encountered. The negative about this is that we will discuss changes very thoroughly and decissions are made that not all editors agree with.

 

Hi Riz, Thanks for your input. Although I don't agree with you and don't believe that's the point of this thread, let's not digress these concerns have already been discussed.

The plot thickens *popcorn comes out*

Even if there's any basis to that...SO WHAT! That may explain his extra passion for the subject, he has made many great points that are tough to dispute.

I can fully appreciate the sensetivity of the subject and truly have no problem with 'adult' entertainment. It just seems there is alot of 'grey' areas and inconsistancies in this category that seem to differ from the other categories.

I really don't want to see things get personal as it really degrades a thread.

What I am simply curious to know about is what, if any, corrective measures are being made to combat some of the information that has been made public on this thread. Specifically why *certain* websites can get multiple listings, and how questionable if not illegal material gets endorsed by editors? This seems to be mainly in the adult category. As gworld points out the title and description are approved by editors, which blows my re-review theory away...indeed it appears as though illegal subject matter made it through the human reviewers scope, How?

 

I've been following this thread and have read most of it (I'm not going to read 37 pages when most of it is repetition...lol). I have refrained from posting because, quite frankly, I don't see much to be gained from it. Most of the people here have already made up their minds regarding the ODP, and there isn't much that I can say that is going to change their mind.

As this is my first post here, I will introduce myself.

I am editor sidjf - http://dmoz.org/profiles/sidjf.html

I'm an editall who edits mostly in Games and Adult. I'm listed in Adult/Shopping but edit all over Adult from time to time. I don't own any adult websites, so I have nothing to gain by abusing Adult or manipulating listings in any way.

First off,

Is not true. As far as I know, no one has been told not to post here. The truth of the matter is that most editors recognize that there is little to be gained by posting here, so what's the point in doing it?

Second, I would like to reaffirm what pagode has been telling you. This matter is being discussed and is taken very seriously. We try not to fly by the seat of our pants in the ODP. Sometimes this means that things take longer than we like. If we want to remove a selection of sites that don't currently go against any guidelines, then that has to be discussed. You can make arguements that it shouldn't be like this, but it is what it is. Editors can't just wander through the directory making up their own rules as they go along (although some do, and are removed for it because that is abuse).

Third, I'd like to thank the people that have brought these sites to our attention, no matter what their motivations. I often see people (in various forums) posting links to messy categories to "prove" that the ODP is corrupt (or whatever other theory they might be selling) - not to say that this was the motivation here, but it's along the same lines. Although they are usually trying to hurt the ODP, these posts are actually helping the ODP. The truth is that sometimes a category is just overlooked. Maybe there was just a new editor in the category that didn't know what they were doing, or maybe it really is an example of abuse. Either way, by bringing it to our attention, we can fix it. And that is a Good Thing.

Fourth, I see a few posts sarcastically referring to the "quality" sites being listed in the ODP. Our goal is to index the web. Sometimes this means listing sites that are of little or no value to the vast majority of people. We do have a few limitations as to what will be listed. One of them is child pornography. I think that this is a better policy than censoring out listings.

And finally, I see a lot of complaints here about the ODP, and I wonder - is there anything at all that could be done that would make these people happy, short of the ODP shutting down? So, to satisfy my own curiousity, what would *you* do to fix these listings? Simply removing them will not solve any problems as they could just be listed again (hence the need for a discussion to hash out what kind of rules should be made) What type of rule would you write that would say where we draw the line. I already wrote one, and proposed to to the other editors, but I'm curious as to what you guys (meaning the nay sayers) would do to fix the problem.

 

Thanks for posting, I disagree that editors can't get any value out of posting here, that is far from the truth!

What should be done to make things right at DMOZ

First you can consider that some parents may file suit against DMOZ if they find that their young children found porn by using the directory!

Can anyone get to these listings regardless of their age, can they go from these listings to these sites that people have described here

If so the question DMOZ people need to ask themselves is, would I want my family members to be able to use this resource to find these websites

That should give you all some guidelines.

Thanks listening and responding sidjf

 

Thank you for posting, and despite the beating you are likely to get in this thread, I, for one, respect you for being here and at least participating.

Personally, I think it all comes down to basic fairness. The ODP has the ability to drastically change the traffic flow and revenue to a website. Why else would so many people try so despirately to get listed. However, it is really disheartening to try numerous times, with various web sites, only to never hear anything and ultimately realize your site is not going to be included. THEN, you browse through the directory and stumble upon sites such as those listed here. Sites that obviously offer no real value to the web, and in some cases are blatently illegal and immoral.

How would you have people respond? Should they just toss up their arms and forget about it? It has to make people wonder just how those sites got there. Whether it was corruption, or just a new editor. It still does not cvhange the fact that so many people try so very hard and get denied, yet others get listed without trying, and even more get sites listed that have no reason even being live, let alone listed. It is basically saying, this site is better than your, because it is listed.

I think what most people here would like to see is just fairness. Now that may not be entirely possible, but a good step towards it would surely be a system of double checking an editors work, and a system of consistant guidelines across all categories.

A proper response could have slowed much of the sarcasm in this thread long ago. Something as simple as "Yes, we see a problem, and we are going to fix it." Instead, responses like "You guys need serious help," were given.

Sure, there are people that say things that are innapropriate. but you must understand the amount of frustration that is guiding that response. For a great many people here, their web sites represent their livelyhood, and not just a hobby. It would be a lot easier to accept not getting listed, if there were not so many instances of sites listed that cannot possibly have been given the amount of criticizm that many of ours were given, and then refused.

 

That seems pretty far fetched...Are you suggesting that we comletely remove all of Adult (or all the listings that have porn)? I doubt that Google or Yahoo are worried about lawsuits because of listing porn sites. The internet is literally full of porn. Us cataloging it does not make it more or less pervasive.

In fact, there are indirect links to porn sites in this very thread! Is this website in danger of a lawsuit?

 

There was a story on NBC News the other night about them trapping internet predators that wanted to have sex with teenage boys, should these kids use DMOZ as an entry point to gain access to sites that predators use to meet kids, DMOZ could surely be hit with a 50 million dollar judgment real easy!

Ask Wacko Jacko how this works

That is just one lawsuit

Think about it, because others are!

 

I can easily understand why people would feel this way, but it is simply not the case at all. Why do some sites get listed and some don't? A lot of it is plain old luck. It's not a sinister plot to deny certain people of listings.

I will not deny that abuse does happen. Sometimes an abuser slips through and systematically denies their competitors listings. I don't think this is nearly as common as many people believe, but to deny that it happens would just be silly. If you see this happening, then PLEASE report it!

Back to luck though. A large factor in listings is whether or not a category has someone actively editing in it. If you submit to a category that doesn't have anyone editing in it (whetehr listed there, or higher in the tree), then your submission might not be noticed for a while. If you submit to a category that is actively edited in, then you might get a listing within a matter of days. This is all, of course, assuming that the site in question is listable.

Although we do try to be consistant throughout the directory, it is simply not possible for ecery Branch to follow the exact same guidelines. Different types of sites require different rules. Webmasters would lose less sleep if they only compared their listings with others in the same Branch, or even the same category. To say "I only have one listing in Shopping, but this porn site has 23 listings in Adult, it's not fair!" is just not accurate. The person's site should be compared to other sites in Shopping.

You ignored all of the questions I asked you.

 

I guess you need to read my post again, it is not my problem but it is AOL's problem, I am not the one that is going to have lawsuits filed by angry parents over listings, DMOZ is

To be honest, I don't care one way or another what DMOZ does, I am just here to scare the living hell out of AOL executives

 

Fair enough.

I can't provide an answer for what AOL executives are thinking/planning, so I guess your question was rhetorical...

 

Well that is who is responsible in the end, not you editors, Google has heat on them right now....

So don't you think common sense would dictate that you guys do something quickly, like it is very urgent, that does make sense, right

 

Thanks very much sidjf.

Well I have a slightly different perspective, having read the editor's TOS. In your defence alot is expected of a unpaid 'volunteer'. Perhaps too much for some categories, adult being the only one. As you have suggested the net is litered with dispicable porn and that's a fact. To think that one editor has control over his/her adult category is a longshot, IMO. I say this having once been on the other side of the fence (envolved with online porn). Most successful pornmasters are the craftiest webmasters I've seen as evidenced on this thread.

It would make sense that adult categories are re-reviewed by editors and perhaps more than one editor approves a single submission. This may require a little more time an effort on ODP BUT the merits would far outweigh the pitfalls. This thread being one potention pitfall or worst , as AC suggests a lawsuit .

The ODP is the only real project of its sort and I respect what your mission is. Because I don't get my sites listed often is really my problem and I reside to that fact after reading editors TOS. However, If that TOS was consistantly enforced in adult categories it wouldn't work, IMO. To keep it as clean as you can it will require more editor's TLC and monitoring. I disagree with those that say just eliminate it (adult) totally.

I'm pretty sure we ALL agree on the dispicable parts that seem to surface through this, for that reason you may wish to 'watch' this category more closely


CHEERS!

 

These listings have been up for a long time. A few more days while we decide exactly what to do will not hurt anything.

Measure twice and cut once.

I agree. If it were possible to have every single site double reviewed before listing would be awesome! I hope you can see the catch22 here though.

On the one hand we have people complaining that sites do not get reviewed fast enough

On the other hand we have people complaining that sites are not being reviewed good enough.

We are being told to speed up and slow down at the same time!

A large problem is manpower, especially in Adult. It's hard to find people that a) want to edit in Adult and b) are not abusive. As you just said, "Most successful pornmasters are the craftiest webmasters I've seen". I believe we have a good core group of Adult editors right now. It is a small group though.

In further reply to anthonycea's various theories in this thread as to the lack of editor response:

After browsing through this forums and seeing threads like "Let's Red rep. DMOZ editors", in addition to the multitude of accusations and attacks made on editors here, do people *really* wonder why most editors decide not to post? It's not because we don't have answers, it's because we don't enjoy bing flamed. (Although, so far, my experience here has been good...hopefully it stays that way )