DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

You bet your ass it's sour grapes. You wouldnt know about it, you simply add all your sites and buddies sites when needed. No waiting and no problems. No worries, I have been waiting a bit over 6 months, only a year or so to go before I get my "review".

I think someone should take a site like digg.com and make a spin off of a directory. That way it really is fair. If X amount of people "digg" your submission then it makes it to the directory or whatever.

And whoever brought up the thing about would a gallery site of nature pictures ever get 104 listings made a great point. This is fucking bullshit, yet the editors STILL try to put a spin on the whole thing, pathetic.

I hope matt cutts or someone from google reads this thread and looks into the matter, then stops using DMOZ for their directory listings. Gee, I bet none of the editors would stop working at DMOZ if that were to happen. What a fucking joke.

People with great quality sites wait YEARS to be listed in DMOZ. Yet sites like cherryboys or whatever its called get 104 fucking listings. I have only seen one editor actually say "yes this is a problem". The rest just try to put a spin on the whole thing.

 

I gave ya a green rep for being honest. Nice to see an editor actually say its a problem.

 

Maybe not, theyre still there....... anyone could go there by C&P

 

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=cherryboys.com&all=no&cs=UTF-8&cat=Adult - the first result that comes up does not look like a child porn gallery to me. Not even close. Much though I am strongly against a number of aspects of Adult branch, this is not a good example of the accusation made in this thread, of support for child abuse. The existence of multiple galleries from the same owner, which are nothing more than deeplinks in effect if not in practice is an entirely different matter. Certain sites such as bbc.co.uk and imdb.com are listed thousands of times - they are considered excellent resources. Can you apply the same to adult image galleries? Many editors don't think so. Others, mainly but not exclusively those who edit in Adult, obviously think you can. The main trouble lies in activities that appear to contradict general editing guidelines and practices in other branches. Such as listing multiple related URLs. These, and legacy crap listed by ejected editors, combine to give an appearance of abuse that is a dreadful PR nightmare. And it is avoidable by clarifying the guidelines and bringing Adult into line with other branches. But it does not signify ongoing corruption. It might be a loophole, it might be unfair, but those do not automatically equal corruption.

Yes, they would be punished in other branches. But not in Adult. And it is not clear where that is given an exemption in the Guidelines. And in fact a senior Adult editor once actually encouraged multiple submission of related sites in a public forum, directly contradicting the submission guidelines. If it is permitted then it should say so in guidelines. If it is not permitted then the same rules should apply to Adult as in other branches. But editors can and do list unsubmitted deeplinks and only an editor could check whether in this case (and others) it was an editor picking the deeplink for listing, or a webmaster submitting them. If you care to look carefully you will find examples of more than one gallery from the same owner listed in the same category. And if you look at http://research.dmoz.org/~gti96/ddp/03014/#Deeplinks you will see that the first point says "Adding multiple deeplinks to a specific site in the same category" is an indicator (not proof) of possible abuse. Yet that appears permissible in Adult and again it is not documented as an exception. One possible reason is that "site" has not been defined in ODP terms. It isn't an URL or domain and that leaves leeway. There are other areas where lack of definitions can open doors. For example deeplinks may not be submitted but may be listed by editors under certain controls (not in the same category for example). Multiple related URLs may not be submitted but nowhere I can find does it explicitely prohibit the listing of related URLs in the same category. Most editors would transpose the deeplink guidelines but not in Adult. So again there are some missing guidelines and, perhaps, define some definitions. In addition, just to complicate matters further, there are some categories where multiple deeplinks are listed in the same category and no-one objects yet are not specifically defined as exceptions in Guidelines either - e.g. http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Educa.../United_States/Massachusetts/Amherst_College/

Conclusion - a documentation mess that needs clearing up.

As I said before, petition AOL and Google if you want the situation with Adult image galleries cleaned up. If you spot illegality report it to the authorities. And for sites with erotic stories for Adults about kids being spanked, if it is not illegal then listing them is just sick. There again to some people the most abhorent thing in the world is abortion and DMOZ lists sites about abortion. For me, I can understand both sides of the abortion debate but I cannot for the life of me even begin to comprehend how a site designed to sexually arouse adult through imagery of kids being spanked is in any way, shape or form acceptable to anyone bar a sicko. Legal or illegal I don't think there is an excuse for them being listed.

 

Absolutely. Dead on. I really would like to hear from even one DMOZ editor who thinks otherwise.

 

Only a tiny handful of editors edit in Adult - what they do has no effect at all on the rest of DMOZ. Adult comprises approx. 1% of DMOZ content, galleries a lot less than 1%. It isn't a question of editors choosing one site over another to review, more of choosing whether or not to review a site or not. If that makes sense - in other words an editor only reviews sites they have a personal interest* in. If an editor has an interest in cherryboy image galleries they are unlikely to have an interest in seeing eye dog sites. So if cherryboys had only 1 listing not 104 the net result is 103 less cherryboy image galleries, not 103 more elsewhere in the directory.

* for clarity - sites about a subject the editor is interested in, not sites they have a beneficial interest in.

Many many editors believe there is a problem, some have resigned over it.

 

I think it's safe to say that unless youre an editor at DMOZ you will have one hell of a time getting your site listed 104 times. Unless of course youre a well known mainstream website.

There is no way an average joe can get 104 listings in DMOZ, adult site or not. If thats not a form of "corruption" then i dont know what is.

 

Did someone say that they saw nothing wrong with a porn site getting 104 listings. OK, but... Cheerryboys.com (the real site) has 61 listings and a redirect (cherryboys.net) has 104. Do you see anything wrong with that?

 

Devils advocate: fundamentally what is the difference between the lonelyplanet site and a porn site? Find a guideline that specifically says an editor cannot list 165 deeplinks of a site if they believe it adds value to the directory. IMO the guidelines should say that multiple galleries from the same site/owner should not be listed, only the root URL of the main site. And if the webmaster doesn't provide navigation then tough (as it is elsewhere in most commercial parts of the directory). But you won't find such a guideline, hence there is nothing wrong with it in terms of DMOZ guidelines. Connect a serving DMOZ editor to the site and the listings and you have the basis for an abuse report - self-promotion. Even then it might not be a hanging offence since the guidelines do not specifically prohibit the listings. Answer, close the loopholes in the guidelines.

 

And the plot thickens, it appears cybersexnetwork2.com (48 listings) is a redirect to an adult web hosting service.

 

You bet the editor has PERSONAL interest. How else this editor could find 104 links that are not accessible through the main page and not available to public? Do you mean he just guessed 104 links and then add it to the directory?

The other point of interest seems to be that all these pages that are listed, are nothing more than door way (entry page) to another web site which itself listed in DMOZ by name of UGAS(.)com.

So an editor first guessed 104 URL and then added these affiliate links to DMOZ, even if the main sites is listed in directory also and DMOZ editors here claim that they are looking for unique content.

This is the text from entry page of UGAS (.) com:

"UGAS.com offers a simple and safe way of tapping into the profit-generating potential of the Internet. By becoming a UGAS.com Affiliate you can easily earn thousands of dollars per week and your investment of time and money is shockingly low."

Who said that "volunteer" work at DMOZ is not profitable?

 

It's obvious someone did not read the following:

 

I don't know, I can't see the logs. But it is a fair bet the webmaster suggested them. Against general submission guidelines but in line with encouragement given publicly from at least one Adult editor. Equally as has been pointed out to you before there have been a number of Adult editors removed for abusive editing and it could be one of those responsible.

You are tarring all editors with the same brush. 99% of editors and in DMOZ as a whole don't edit in the Adult branch. That branch has many things about it that appear to contradict the way things are done elsewhere. It appears in Adult galleries to be based primarily on how many photos you have not found on another gallery - mathematics. No other branch works that way.

UGAS seems to me to be some kind of affiliate content provider but I can't see where it explicitely says they provide the content although it seems to be implied. If that is the case, and cherryboys gallery content is exclusively from UGAS then it would fall foul of affiliate content guidelines.

 

UGAS is the one that people buy the membership from and provides the content. The other sites are nothing more than door way pages for selling UGAS membership.

The rest of your post get A+ for effort in making excuses for DMOZ but I don't think any person with IQ over 50 will buy in to your excuses.

 

Well, we were all anxiously awaiting someone from DMOZ to step up to the plate and post in this thread (noticed it took a long time for someone brave enough to post). We all assumed someone would say, "Oh jeez! That's terrible. I'll make sure the problem is corrected ASAP!" Instead we get these less-than-satisfactory responses similar to, "Yea, so what." Great job, DMOZ. Keep up the outstanding job.

 

GWorld the Troll feeding time over

 

The main premise of the thread, that cherryboys is evidence of support for child porn, is discredited. Guidelines as they stand don't prohibit multiple gallery listings though IMO they should (irrelevant for the actual position now). The issue of affiliate content has only just been raised and will be dealt with if someone reports it. That is about the extent of it this time. Apart from someone please do something about those spanking of kids sites.

 

OK. Now we are getting somewhere. It's definitely against the ODP Guidelines I quoted above. It's affiliate, and they are submitting redirects....so yank 'em (uh, bad choice of words).

 

Lets not BS eachother, this has nothing to do with an editor adding value to the directory, this is an editor creating more income for themselves, clients, family or friends. This is nothing more than an attempt to use dmoz as a tool for increasing their Seo and serps in Google.

We all see threads started on DP to advertise new tools. I think anything related to Dmoz should be placed under webmaster / Editor Tools, cause Dmoz is nothing more than a tool to manipulate and increase a sites Seo in Google.

To offer a little more proof, once again I only really view my industry in Dmoz. Guidelines state that descriptions should not use search engine enriched keywords for descriptions, so explain why several sites would have the only description being Las Vegas Real Estate.

This just goes to show that some editors are with Dmoz to increase their family, friends or their sites Seo benefits to increase their income online by using Dmoz as a Seo Tool. So if we are being truthful, why not admit it. This is not about improving the quality of Dmoz, it is about manipulation. What normal person would wish to see acts of child abuse that is meant to sexually arouse.

I do agree with reporting these type sites to the FBI internet division and also sending an email to the congressional committee investigating porn and child porn.

Maybe next time Matt creates a blog post that would be in-line with this type of abuse, one of us should post a link to this page.

 

Just scouting around for real evidence: if you want something to get worked up about try

Adult/Computers/Internet/Chats_and_Forums/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/

That is carrying freedom of speech just too far. I am just so glad I am no longer an editor, my blood would have boiled at the thought of being in the same organization as people who would create such a category and list such sites.

p.s. to whoever it was, thanks for the tip-off.