1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

DMOZ Top Listed DOmains

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by dvduval, Jul 4, 2005.

  1. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    355
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #41
    I might extend your last point, and say the ODP is no longer what it used to be, and I think it is a blessing that I am no longer a part of the organization. Where possible, I intend to raise public awareness about ODP issues, and let people judge for themselves. One excuse I hear often is that since listings are old, then they are somehow justified. If the ODP really wants to be an honest organization, I suggest they let all websites owned by editors be known to the public.
    SEMrush
     
    dvduval, Jul 5, 2005 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Las Vegas Homes

    Las Vegas Homes Guest

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #42
    I am sure at some point google, The Ftc or some other organization will place a mole editor in DMOZ and expose them for what they are ( If they havent already ). Some of it may result in criminal charges being filed by the US Attorney General. IMHO there have been enough people complain that someone has taken notice with more power than we all have. Time will only tell and then we get to hear those famous words " I WAS ONLY A VOLUNTEER"
     
    Las Vegas Homes, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  3. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    355
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #43
    If the ODP wants to be honest in a public facing way, they need to mark all sites owned by editors, not show the editors name, but just mark it. If they have nothing to hide, then there will be no problems doing this, and it will make it MUCH easier to identify problem categories.
     
    dvduval, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  4. Peter Sellers

    Peter Sellers Peon

    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #44
    brilliant ..
     
    Peter Sellers, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  5. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    355
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #45
    And this "brilliance" is not limited to this forum.
    It is really sad how the OPD is so easily exploited now, and how it is not possible to control the "Caligulas" who run it.
     
    dvduval, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  6. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #46
    An interesting idea, for sure. But whose job is it to "identify problem categories"?

    You talk about "public-facing". I would propose that the general public want a list of good sites on a topic, and they really don't care how many, or which are owned by editors or not.

    It sounds like you feel that webmasters and SEOs should have some sort of visibility of the actions of editors to ensure that they live up to their standards.
    Because once you start publishing a list of affiliated sites, do you then start asking for the editing logs, to make sure that the editor hasn't done anything wrong?

    Here is the bottom line, as I see it. One of two things is going on:
    1. The ODP is totally corrupt and administered by a bunch of crooks. If this is true, and it is that obvious, then it must be equally as obvious to the people at Google, and they would drop any use of the directory. In addition, the number of other sites actually using the ODP data would diminish, too. If Google haven't realised this yet, then, since they are so on the ball to root out abuse, I'm sure they will soon. Then, the issues that most of you guys have with the ODP will disappear, because it will no longer be relevant to you.

    2. The ODP is working as intended. The administrators, who require editors to declare site affiliations, are keeping an eye open for "problem categories". Other editors also have a lot of information available to them to help them root out the editors which are absuing the system. Google, and the other users of the data, recognise this, which is why they still use the ODP data for their directories (and whatever else they choose to use them for). Web Professionals will still be frustrated because the ODP will not do what they feel it should, and because Google insists on still using the ODP's data.

    The trick is that neither of these standpoints can be proven. I am not an ODP administator or meta, so I can't see whether they are actually all doing a great job or if they are crooks (and neither can a non-editor). The claims of widespread corruption and abuse can not be proven either (yes, there have been some well-publicised cases, but there have been tens of thousands of humans who have contributed to the ODP over the years - one or two cases is still barely a blip - the rest is speculation).

    So it basically comes down to a matter of faith, since there is no concrete evidence to point either way. I'm not going to tell anyone they are wrong to believe Option 1. I, obviously, believe option 2, otherwise I wouldn't still be an editor.

    So, once you have established where your faith lies, the question is what you are going to do about it. I do something about it by encouraging good editors to edit fairly and try to root out mis-listed sites and make the directory a better place - in other words, I try to make Option 2 even more true.

    For the believers in Option 1 - as we have concluded in other discussions on this list - your issue lies with the continued decision by Google to use ODP data, which would hasten its lack of relevance on your radar scopes. It may not go away, but you wouldn't care about it.

    For anyone who has read other posts by me you will know that I do not believe that the ODP is perfect - far from it. There is room for improvement, for sure. But I do believe that nobody does it better.... so far.
     
    Alucard, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  7. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #47
    Alucard,

    Thank you for confirming my faith in that you can always count on a DMOZ editor to deliver loads and loads of BS.:)
     
    gworld, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  8. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #48
    gworld. You are welcome. Likewise. :)
     
    Alucard, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  9. Peter Sellers

    Peter Sellers Peon

    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #49
    I like the way he presents his topics

    there is thought in the processing

    :)
     
    Peter Sellers, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  10. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    355
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #50
    Agreed. We really have no way to check ODP. If checks and balances exist for upper level Metas, I don't think we will ever know the full story. Great post, Alucard.
     
    dvduval, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  11. Epica

    Epica Peon

    Messages:
    1,007
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #51
    Heh...well said - I was just going to say the same thing.

    DMOZ may have been concieved and birthed with the best intentions, and greatest expectations, but somewhere along the line parts of it have gone sour ...Parts of the directory are fairly helpful - in that they provide links to sites that are informative and or relevant to the category - while other sections are just plain ridiculous!

    Volunteer Editors take MONTHS in some cases over a year just to review a site..!!?? While other sites submitted much later are admitted almost immediately, and with several listings with SEO anchor text and everything. Still others have had their titles and descriptions changed by a competitor who became an editor of their section. wow...Why would you even bother having a human edited directory if you aren't capable of operating it properly..?

    A volunteer hospital, or charity organization operating in this same set of principles would be silly, but ODP just keeps plugging along. Partly because no money exchanges hands...at least not publically.

    We understand that the ODP is based on volunteers who 'out of the goodness of their hearts' participate in reviewing and admitting only the most useful sites, but I also understand that these editors are 'only human' and prone to prefer sites that will benefit themselves - and I'm sure that there are those editors who are keenly honest and forthright, but lets just be honest shall we - how many of these editors just play their favorites..? and why not.

    I say more power to you DMOZ editors. Do your thang, we're just jealous.

    And when you have successfully imploded what was originally a great idea, theres sure to be some other great resource that you can infect.
     
    Epica, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  12. Las Vegas Homes

    Las Vegas Homes Guest

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #52
    This is the same song but on a different day. As you stated only a few have been exposed..isnt one exposed, one to many?

    Those that hold positions of power should lead by example. IMHO, the example that has been set by those in power is a bad one and has caused the ODP to be previewed by those who lead it to its success to be a system of corruption, lies and half truths.
     
    Las Vegas Homes, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  13. macdesign

    macdesign Peon

    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #53
    By that logic, let's remove the office of the President of the U.S. - it was a good idea when it started and appropriate for the times. But now it no longer serves the purpose. There may be checks and balances, but we've had at least one corrupt president and it's time to stop.
     
    macdesign, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  14. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #54
    I can only echo what macdesign has said - and add that if one SEO is corrupt, does that put the whole profession in disrepute to the point where no-one who is self-respecting should be in the profession? Doesn't make it right, but baby... bathwater... you know.

    Absolutely agree. From all the evidence I have seen from my editing in the ODP (which I have already admitted is incomplete) they do a good job of it. I have witnessed metas being removed for proven abuse.

    OK, I am going to have to trouble you for a reference, here, I'm afraid. Because nothing I have seen written by any founders of the ODP have claimed that it is a system of corruption, lies and half-truths. Please show me where you have seen that. If you are going to make statements like that I would appreciate some sort of back-up. A lot of posts here are just "what someone thought they read somewhere", and I give them that level of credence. So where was this said, exactly?

    Thanks
     
    Alucard, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  15. tzimisce

    tzimisce Guest

    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #55
    If editors spent half the time they do defending ODP, instead on reviewing sites, I dont think we would be having this conversation (or at least not as often).
     
    tzimisce, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  16. macdesign

    macdesign Peon

    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #56
    The editors that do 90% of work are the ones most likely to speak in public forums, since they have the experience to do so. The editors who only do a couple of edits a month are unlikely to be even interested in wasting their time reading this forum, let alone posting in it.
     
    macdesign, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  17. Las Vegas Homes

    Las Vegas Homes Guest

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #57
    No if one person is corrupt then no that doesnt mean that everyone in that profession is. However with the comments and evidence that people on this forum as well as others have produced. Common sense dictates that there is a high level of corruption within DMOZ. Does this suggest that everyone within DMOZ is corrupt or out for their own personal gain...NO...but when thousands upon thousand of people complain that their sites have been overlooked or rejected because of editors that are either 1. Lazy..2. Out for their own interest..3...Corrupt then the masses can not be wrong.

    As I said a little earlier, DMOZ time will come. There will come a time when some organization will slip a mole into DMOZ and we all will find out who was right and who was wrong.


    I do not believe that the founders of ODP went in with the concept that this was going to be a directory of corruption, lies and half truths. Just because it wasnt in their mission statement doesnt mean that it isnt the truth NOW. I do not believe the mission statement that Enron gave when the company was first formed said that they were going to steal the pension funds of their employees either, but we all know what happen there.

    I can appreciate those who defend something that they truly believe in, however as for my opinion of DMOZ, I do believe the masses but yet I make my own conclusions from my past experiences with those VOLUNTEERS with DMOZ.
     
    Las Vegas Homes, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  18. macdesign

    macdesign Peon

    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #58
    What common sense? There are a large number of threads posted about corrruption - very few give facts. Mostly there are of the form of anonymous people making claims that they are editors that take money, or people claiming that they paid for listings. None of them have any proof.

    In two years of reading posts about bias and corruption I have only seen one case where it was verifiable. The person that claimed his sites was being held back by a competitor now has his site listed, and the competitors three sites have been removed and he is no longer an editor.

    It seems many of the posts are made by trolls who just love to see the reaction and turmoil they cause. Others are made by ODP editors that were kicked out and now want some kind of bizarre revenge.

    As Alucard says - the bottom line is what Google believes and I doubt that posts in this forum have any bearing on their actions. Undoubtedly there are Google employees who are ODP editors, and they will see an inside picture that gives a better view of reality.
     
    macdesign, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  19. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #59
    I think macdesign and Alucard are starting to convince me therefore here by, I declare that Both DMOZ and MAFIA are honest, Honorable and reliable organization that try to serve their members in their criminal activity to best of their capacity.:D
     
    gworld, Jul 5, 2005 IP
  20. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #60
    Actually, I disagree with you - I really don't think that the small number of editors who post to external fora would really solve any of the issues that people on boards like this have.

    You can't have it both ways - either there is something fundamentally corrupt with the ODP (in which case more editors doing more work won't help at all), or there isn't, in which it comes down to pure and simple complaints about the time it takes between submitting a site, and it being reviewed....

    Besides, the critique used to be that no editors would ever dare to come onto other fora to discuss editing issues, and they were living in their ivory towers, not wanting to communicate with the masses (not my characterization, but what was often said). Now that we do try to get out here to chat with people, we are told we should be spending more time editing....

    You have your opinion about what the ODP is, and you are entitled to it. So do editors. I feel that neither is right or wrong - they are different perspectives of the same thing. I have read many complaints about the ODP, and I can definitely see why most people come to the conclusions they do, given the information they have.

    But that doesn't make it absolute truth, either. People believed the earth was flat before they could go into space and get a different perspective... If I saw a fraction of the levels of widespread high-level corruption going on in the ODP that are alleged, I would have resigned many months ago. I don't. I am still an editor. So, since you are convinced that it really is going on and anybody denying it is obviously lying, I guess I am one of the corrupt ones....

    So any editor who denies it is lying, and that supports your argument, and any editor that says that there is widespread corruption bolsters your arguments too. So it really doesn't matter what is said, does it? You (and others) have made your mind up about what the ODP is and what it isn't, and no amount of a different perspective from an editor on the "front line" can change your mind.

    Ah, but your statement, if I understood it correctly, was that the founders had made comments that it was corrupt... maybe I misunderstood what you wrote - if so, then I am sorry. I am not certain of your usage of the word "previewed" in what you wrote, and probably guessed wrongly.
     
    Alucard, Jul 5, 2005 IP