DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

I wouldn't say we're "in the business" of it. But do some get listed? I'm sure they do.

I've found everyone here so far to be quite intelligent. I never thought any of you were morons.

Earlier today I removed a batch of sites featuring stories about minors. I'm sure more will follow soon. Progress is being made.

 

That's great man, now these guys can back down a little.....

Hey guys, DMOZ is improving, so don't be so mean to this member/DMOZ editor..

 

But...I'm mean to everybody. Do you want me to change, Anthony? Surely you don't want me to drink the "loves and hugs" kool aid that gworld has been drinking!

 

Well, like I told you, do they really have a choice at this point......

We can be kind to this member, he is doing what he can, you guys will keep looking at the listings I am sure!

 

Anthony, I only look at those listings to point out areas where DMOZ could improve, not for some kind of sexual gratification.....I use Booble.com for that.

 

Man I am glad I don't know where they are at, you can have that job!

 

That is nice of you but you still didn't give any answer to my post, is it because it stops one of the the money making machines for the DMOZ editors?
I think one of the editors mentioned previously that stopping corruption is not an acceptable option for editors, how come you are not asking me for more suggestions?

 

I said in http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=608556&postcount=421

Stopping corruption (whether it is rampant or rare) is a high priority for many editors, and is important to practically every editor. If people want to offer more or other suggestions, I would be more than happy to see them.

 

I beg to differ - editors have never said that stopping corruption is not an acceptable option. What has been stated, however, is that the suggestions you've offered previously are not acceptable options.

Care to read through this whole thread again? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=41578

 

Well we differ in our opinion but that is past.

What is wrong with my suggestion in this thread, except stopping corruption and providing higher quality content to your users?

But it seems sidjf or other editors are not interested in discussing it or implanting it. Is it too sensitive to show, how easy it is to raise the quality and stop the corruption because maybe other editors will jump on the bandwagon of such suggestions?

 

You are too modest sidjf. Why not instead of assuming things and run DMOZ the way you assume, be a democratic organization and send a survey to ALL editors and ask them if they agree with your interpretation that DMOZ should be in affiliate doorway business for porn sites as you admitted here and provide links to underground illegal sites or not?

Let's volunteer and editors decide about the interpretation of the goals of the organization that they are volunteering for. Aren't the volunteers the heart of such organizations as DMOZ?

Why do editors need to send me green rep in this thread instead of being able to voice their concern in DMOZ?

 

1) I'm not running dmoz.
2) My interpretation of the guidelines says that Adult is ok. A large part of the reason I interpret them this way is that the ODP founders included Adult - so obviously it was not inconsistant with their vision of the directory. In addition to this, the existance of Adult has apparently met the approval of all staff since the ODP was started.

Well, first off, I don't have the ability to send a survey to all editors. Second, you are twisting my words a bit - as I already pointed out. There is no need for that. If I didn't say it, then don't pretend that I did. I said that many Adult sites use small free galleries to drive business to affiliates and/or membership/AVS sites. Some of those sites get listed. This is no great revelation or admittion. It's just plain old common sense. Do you think that free porn sites are available just out of the goodness of a webmaster's heart? It's the nature of the pornsite industry.

This brings me to my (unanswered) question again. Should the web change to conform to the rules of the ODP, or should the rules of the ODP change to conform to the web?

 

I am confused what you mean? Are you talking about if DMOZ should have adult section or not? This a question for the members (volunteers) of DMOZ like any other organization that is based on volunteer work. The 64000 dollar question is; if you give them a chance to decide?

If you are asking my opinion, I have nothing against porn as I mentioned before and doesn't make any difference for me if DMOZ has it or not. Not only I have playboy channel on my cable selection, I have participated in orgies and one of my favorite sexual activities is to have multiple women (3-4) in bed at same time. So nice try but don't try to make me one of those crazy religious persons who are against any adult material and want to censor everyone.

My Suggestion was about improving the quality of porn listings and destroying the corruption that you refuse to discuss. The real question here is; should DMOZ be corrupt and cash machine for editors or not? After all if you want to fly from New York to Los Angeles, you won't fly through Hong Kong, so why should users of DMOZ reach a porn web site through an affiliate doorway link instead of directly to the web site?

 

I apologize - I did not mean for the question to be unclear. :/

What I mean is:

Currently, a large portion of porn sites are designed in a way that uses small free galleries to drive business to affiliates and/or membership/AVS sites.

In most of the directory, we would not list these types of sites. So should we stop listing a large portion of adult content and tell them to change their sites (Should the web change to conform to the rules of the ODP) if they want a listing, or should we allow them to be listed in Adult because thta's just the way porn sites are made (should the rules of the ODP change to conform to the web)?

I don't have a good answer - I can see pros and cons both ways.

I'm not refusing to discuss it. If you want to discuss it, let's do it. You said there is corruption, I said that I agree, but there isn't as much as you say there is and you never responded to that. I don't know what else you are expecting me to say...

They don't. We list free galleries in the Free categories. If a user wants to click on any affiliate links that might be present on the free gallery, and look at other porn sites, that's beyond the care or scope of the ODP.

I see now that you might have misunderstood what I was saying.

We do NOT list affiliate links ANYWHERE in the ODP (if you find them, let us know so that they can be removed). Sometimes a listed site will have an affiliate advertisement on it though. That does not make the site unlistable.

That is what I am talking about here. Free porn galleries (that are not affiliate links themselves), that have affiliate ads on them that lead to other porn sites. Does that make more sense?

 

Small free galleries to drive business to affiliates and/or membership/AVS sites= doorway page

Why not list clickbank store? why not list Amazon store? why not list ebay affiliates? why not the realtors who are agents of big real estate companies?

The official DMOZ policy, as we have been told many many times is that editors don't give a damn about the webmasters and all webmasters are spammers, so why are you so sensitive to the needs of few webmasters that run such a doorway affiliate sites and want to list them while DMOZ refuses to list serious businesses?

Oh, this was a tough question, let me think about it for a minute. I know, how about if you can not find anything wrong with my suggestion then admit that it is a right way to stop to the corruption and implement it in DMOZ, so editors cash machine stops.

What is the difference between listing these so called free galleries and listing affiliates, except the name of the category? Isn't this in conflict with your previous posting that states:

It is funny that you admit that there is nothing free about these pages but then you call the category free galleries instead of the real name (affiliate, doorway pages) and list it. Any big porn web sites has many of these pages, they call it preview pages, why not like I suggested, contact the big porn sites to give you links to real unique doorway, preview pages instead of going through these low quality affiliate sites?

This bring us back to my previous question, is it because DMOZ can not collect affiliate fee directly from big porn producers?

 

I see nothing in forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=608588&postcount=422 that would effectively stop "corruption", so i have no comments to make on it...


All of your affiliate comments were explained and answered in my previous post. I'm not going to repeat the same things over and over. Please don't ask questions and then completely ignore my answer and ask the same question again. It is a waste of time for both of us...

The pictures on the galleries are 100% free.

A better question is, why are you refusing to accept the explanation I gave in my previous post that completely answers this question? I will post it again.

gworld - You are confusing affiliate links (links that have an affiliate tag on them, generating revenue as soon as the link is clicked) with a webpage that has listable content on it in addition to some advertisements that link to affiliates.

You seem to be suggesting that we should not list a porn site that has advertisements on it. That doesn't make much sense to me because most websites, anywehere on the internet and in dmoz, have ads on them.

Please tell me that this is not your suggestion. Please also acknowledge that you are able to recognize the difference between an affiliate link and an affiliate ad. Because up until now, you have been confusing them.

 

I am not confusing anything and my description about doorway pages are right on the money as you are well aware. I am not stupid and I had no illusions that in any way DMOZ editors will accept an alternative that stops the income from the porn affiliate pages.

The whole purpose of my postings was to show to anyone who still has some doubts about DMOZ including the past and present editors that the defenders of adult section are like the naked emperor.

Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!"

"What a marvellous train!"

"And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!" They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

"The Emperor is naked," he said.

"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:

"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"

The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.

 

See this is what perplexes me. We already know that most real estate agents/ Realtors cant get their site listed once, but yet if you run and submit a porn site you can get it listed a few hundred times. Explain why there are more porn sites listed than even real estate? Now I may not be the brightest blub in the room but common sense tells me that if there was a category that was going to be FILLED with spam or corruption it would be the adult section.

Now looking at this from another perspective, which do you believe is more tolerated by the general public, porn, real estate or anyother category. sidjf your views seem to be in line with what we all have come to coin dmoz brainwashing.

Dmoz once again has shown that the money categories are the primary ones that get the most attention. Noticed I said money categories, not money words. I dont imagine to many Realtors are willing to fork over cash to an editor, since most Realtors are cheap by nature, so therefore when you can get your claws into a category like adult a lot of editors are willing to turn a blind eye for the cash benefits.

As I have been told by a few editors, I am a spamming webmaster, well I hate to inform most of you but hell I have a hard enough time adding h1 and h2 tags much less spamming.

The problem is Dmoz doesnt want anyone with enough common sense that has good moral fiber in a so called money category for fear of exposure. This thread has opened some eyes and not just forum members. As it has been stated if you dont believe Google, AOL, FBI and Dateline NBC are not reading this thread, you live in a dream world.

The federal goverment and the general public do not tolerate child porn. I for one say anyone who represents porn to be of a nature that it shows the abuse of children needs to goto jail, anyone who offers to exhibit this type of material should be brought up on criminal charges. I have a 6 year old child and god forbid he ever saw the likes of what a supposed upstanding directory that we have been told over and over again such as dmoz was allowing to be included in its directory.

Stop trying to misdirect the general public / webmasters with your BS excuses, people like minstrel, gworld and others who have contributed to this thread and expose one of the darkest secrets Dmoz wished to keep under the table should recieve the general publics gratitude.

Dmoz is a public relations nightmare and SOON...VERY SOON will be of no use to those that give it power.

 

You guys hate dmoz and dmoz editors so much that even when they try to agree with you, you still argue!

In http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=53712&page=41 I told you what direction I would like Adult to take. If you weren't so blinded by hatred you would see that we are in agreement on almost every point as to how things *should* be! Yet you still come in here and sling mud at me. Please go read the post that I linked to again. Open your eyes. I'm already doing everything that I can to get the websites that even hint at anything to do with children removed. This is originally what the people here wanted - yet when it happens, you have to find something else to complain about. How about a "thank you"?

This confirms for me that to a large extent, I am apparently wasting my time here. There is nothing that the ODP could do that would make some of you happy.

I came to this forum for two reasons:

1) To find out for myself if posting in these threads and trying to discuss things with you guys was really as pointless as I had heard. - So far it's about 50/50 in regards to being pointless.

2) I wanted to hear from people outside of the ODP what they thought was wrong with the ODP and what could be done to fix it. - This is a bit less than 50/50. A few people have offered good suggestions and actually tried to explain different problems they saw in the ODP. Others just repeat the same rhetoric over and over and over.

gworld - I know that you think that the ODP is full of corrupt editors. There is nothing I can do about it though. I don't see them. Show me corrupt editors and I will show you action. Saying, "Look, there is a site with an affiliate add!" doesn't prove corruption. It doesn't prove anything.

Again, gworld - If you will take the time to actually read my posts, and if you can for just one second stop hating me just for being an editor, you will see that on almost every point we agree on how Adult should be!

I would like to see Adult move towards the direction of what I posted earlier, but it will not happen over night and to think that it should is just not realistic.

If anyone here truely cared about the things they claim to care about, they would be supporting and helping me. Not accusing me of being corrupt, brainwashed, or abusive.

 

We don't hate you brother, count on that!