DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Well there may have been some members that were mad that started bashing threads, but I started one here that was a thread to help improve the directory, so not all the threads here are all bashing threads!

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=12671&page=7

Digital Point DMOZ threads have become sort of legendary for some reason and I think you should use this popularity as a tool to improve DMOZ and one to communicate with the community in a neutral setting!

I am all for improvement, I think that we may have used some attention getting tactics, but they did work...

 

Yes. It is inconsistent with the stated goals of DMOZ.

It endorses it and helps to promote it and it is contrary to the stated goals of DMOZ.

 

Could you post (or provide a link to) the stated goals that Adult is inconsistant with? Thanks.

 

Do children using a public computer station, let's say at their school library need a special password to get into the adult section of DMOZ

 

You're an editor: Are you saying you don't know?

Now would you care to address the issue of DMOZ promoting and endorsing sites like some of the many listed here and at http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html?

 

I totally expected that answer...

I want to know what specific parts you think pose an inconsistancy. If it's there, just post it. This isn't a game - I'm not here to find out who's smarter. You wanna be smarter? Fine - you're smarter than me. Please show me the stated goal that you referenced.

If the school library acted responsibly and put filters in place on the computers, then yes. Otherwise, no.

 

Ok, you want the truth behind why everyone is outraged? Maybe it has something to do with being almost impossible to get a site listed in DMOZ, and almost impossible to be accepted as an editor, yet crap like cherryboys.com gets 61 listings and the owner of said crap is (obviously) an editor.

I have never seen anyone complain about abuse or corruption in any other major directory, only DMOZ. Yet no one on the inside of DMOZ thinks there is any problems (My guess is because they are so happy to be that 0.01% that got randomly chosen to be an editor).

I have never heard a complaint about Yahoo, for example, other than the $300 price tag, but many people gladly pay that , and would pay DMOZ that amount. I have never heard any complaints about other free, volunteer-edited directories such as Zeal, who will accept practically anyone to be an editor, yet no one says that Zeal is overrun with spam.

DMOZ has to change or it's simply going to become irrelevant and die. There, I said it. Red rep away, boys...

 

I don't doubt that it isn't a game to you. I'm sure it's all business.

Try these:

http://dmoz.org/about.html

"best content"?

http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html

"culling out the bad"? "keeping only quality"?

http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html

"high quality"?

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

"high quality"?

Can you explain to me how most of the sites in Adult meet these goals?

Now contrast the genral DMOZ rules and guidelines with the ones for Adcult categories: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/adult/general.html

Notice anything there?

 

So a 10 year old kid can use DMOZ to get directly to porn sites quickly

 

Sorry to say but for DMOZ this is not a problem. The directory as a whole is still growing.

No, you only have to make a good and honest request. And it certainly is not a random proces.

If so it is time to go and do some other things. But this has been predicted almost from the beginning of DMOZ and we are still here.

 

If he has responsible parents he can´t.
If not he can. Just as he can by using Google and many other resources on the internet.

 

Oh, please... knock off the BS, pagode.

We're not talking about whether the stuff is on the net or not. We're talking about whether you and other DMOZ editors approve of using DMOZ to endorse and promote those sites.

I have a site that lists selected resources, as well as a small niche directory. My policy about the site is very clear: I assume that if I list a site, even though I have a prominent disclaimer saying that I do not control the content of other sites and do not necessarily agree with said content, that visitors to my site will assume -- precisely because the resources are a selected sample rather than all inclusive -- that I am at least to some extent endorsing that site as a resource, even if I don't share the opinions expressed there. There is an element of quality control that is expected and there is an element of endorsement that is also expected.

It's not a difficult policy to understand or to follow.

Are you going to try to tell me that such a policy doesn't apply to DMOZ or that it would be too difficult for DMOZ editors to follow such a policy?

Please.

 

Yeah but a kid would have to put keywords in Google, with a directory he or she has to simply get into that section and everything is right there!

What if word gets out in grade schools and kids start using DMOZ for porn, you guys will be up shit creek without a paddle then!

You guys know how kids talk.....

 

Having sites wait years for a review is not a problem? For who? You, maybe. I wonder if we took a poll asking "is the long wait to get into DMOZ a problem?" what kind of numbers we would get. Pagode, you know what the results of a such a poll would be. Not very pretty for DMOZ. But that's great you like the way things are.

 

I explained to SiteExpress in #375 why, at least in part, some sites get lsted quickly and some don't. And also why some stes get multiple listings and some don't. I don't need to repeat it, but if you have specific questions about what I said, I would be glad to elaborate.

Obviously? If you have any real evidence to back this up, please fill out an abuse report so that it can be dealt with! If you don't want to do that, send it to me personally and I promise that I will do everything that i can to investigate it, and if there is abuse, to get the editor removed.

I've already stated that there is obviously and undeniably abuse in the ODP. Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or lying. However, I don't think it is as rampanr as you apparantly think it is. It does happen. Most of the time it is caught and the editor is removed. I'm sure that there are some who are not caught. Common sense tells me this is true.

They aren't complaining because they are able to get their sites listed there. What's to complain about? You can't buy your way in to DMOZ however (not officially anyways - according to people here, you can do it unofficially though). This is what makes people mad.

That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. You stated it politely and I think it would be sad and pathetic for someone to red rep someone for stating an opinion in a polite fashion in an appropriate thread.

This is the part where I'm supposed to get angry and start ranting and making myself look like a fool, right? It's nice how you can not only call me a liar (as I already stated that I have no Adult sites), but also accuse me of abuse, all in one sentence! Especially when you don't know mw at all. I have been nothing but polite and helpful so far on this board, yet you have to immediately jump out with accusations.

I came here to be helpful and try to provide honest answers to questions people are asking. It's sad that that would be met with such hostility.

That's very subjective. Many people think that the very best content on the we is porn. Many others don't.

Again, subjective. We do cull out a lot of bad porn sites - in fact, thanks to this thread, we are going to get rid of even more bad ones.

I've seen some very high quality adult websites. Far better than much of the crappy cookie-cutter sites submitted to Shopping.

It also says "comprehensive".

Adult meets these goals exactly the same way that all of the other categories in the ODP do. Whether you, or me, or anyone else likes it, porn is a large part of the internet. To ignore it is not only naive, it would be counter-productive to the ODPs goal of being a comprehensive directory.

I argue that removing Adult is what would be contrary to the stated goals of the ODP.

We don't intentionally (as far as I know) list anything illegal in Adult. And if it does get listed, we remove it. Show mw otherwise and I will look in to it and do what I can to correct a problem if it exists.

Well, not exactly. As I'm sure you already know, Adult is not listed on the front page of the ODP. We also do not link to Adult from categories outside of Adult (we're not supposed to anyways, if you find any, please let us know so we can remove it). So a 10 year old can't just click their way to some porn. However, if they are smart enough to use Google and find porn, then they can also do so at dmoz. In other words, you have to enter a search that will bring up a site in Adult. There are a few specific words that have to be searched for to get to Adult. I don't know them off hand, but use your imagination and i bet you can find most of them.

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of warning/entry page before entering Adult or being shown any Adult search results. Just a standard adult disclaimer with a checkbox stating that the person is old enough to view it. This obviously is not going to stop anyone who really wants to see adult content, but it will protect people from finding it by accident.

What solutions would you suggest for this, anthonycea?

 

I have no idea on how to keep kids out other than the same things the porn industry uses.

But I do know that the government is putting heat on all the search engines and as I said before the media is looking at internet predators that seek teenage kids as partners!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nbc+news+teenage+internet+predators&btnG=Google+Search

If I were in the search business I would be on the look out because I see criminal charges coming soon for many operators and that includes search providers!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9878187/

This could also result in lawsuits seeking damages by the victims parents!

 

That's a joke, right? Have you read what you've posted here?

No. You came here to defend an indefensible policy. And you did so aggressively. That's why you've been "met with such hostility".

So, like CrustyG before you, you are saying that you approve of the use of DMOZ to promote and endorse pornography on the web.

That's two, folks. Any more?

See my reply to pagode above:

You, sidjf, have now clearly stated that you do approve this, as had CrustyG. Thank you both for making that clear.

Anyone else?

 

minstrel - you certainly know how to use your psychology knowledge.

Now if only these powers could be harnessed for good...

Seriously though. I know you're only trying to goad me into an angry response so that you can sleep soundly tonight knowing that you bested someone on the internet!

Despite your trolling and flaming, you actually seem like a nice guy. I'm not going to respond to your posts if all they consist of is misquoting me, accusations, and unproven claims (which is what your entire previous post consisted of). If you care to have a real conversation or even a civilized arguement, I will be ready and willing to do so.

You will now, of course, reply with more accusations. You will claim that I am not responding to you because I don't have answers to your provocative questions and statements. You will try even harder to get me to respond to you, just because I said I wouldn't. Or, maybe you won't, now that I have called you on it...Either way, have fun. Like I said, when you're ready to have a real discussion, I'll respond to you.

I'll be glad to answer questions/provide help/have discussions with everyone else as most people here, even if they dislike the ODP, are able to seperate that from an editor who has done them no wrong.

 

Well let me start by asking you to show me where I misquoted you.

I am not trying to goad you into anything, by the way. I don't care whether you're angry or getting off on one of your adult sites - it makes no difference to me.

What does make a difference to me is that if you choose to participate in this discussion you leave the Resource Zone bullshit and bafflegab behind. I have no time for that crap.

 

Sorry Minstrel, you left that open,

I approve, that there has been an approval, for the approved of their own approving waiting for our conformation of this approval of our approving

Sorry I couldnt resist minstrel...