DMOZ Top Listed DOmains

Ok, so what we're really talking about is that DMOZ has allowed a stack of dumb categories to be added which allow some sites to have far too many deep links to have any really meaning. And they're not spread consistently so some sites get the multiple deep links and others don't.

The problem is not that the sites get the links
The problem is not that editors add sites to dumb categories
The problem is not that editors are corrupt

The problem is that the "template" allows the dumb categories or that it is not enforced.

Right?

 

No. What we are talking about is an outdated concept with a flawed infrastructure and editors out of control that has resulted in a situation where hundreds of sites of little or no value, including but certainly not limited to numerous porn sites, including but not limited to child porn sites, having not only more than one listing in the directory but numbers of listing in the 2, 3, and even 4 digit range.

With all the rhetoric from DMOZ defenders, I have yet to see a single justification for that situation.

 

No one is going to fight you over that one Minstrel. It appears to go against their own guidelines, is measurable and visible. It will be interesting to see if any internal debate will be entertained

 

NO KIDDING, is it against their own guidelines?

Internal debate?

ethical,

You are either new and naive or you are pulling our legs. In case of the first one, I suggest that you do a search and read all the threads about DMOZ corruption and if you are just joking with us, no problem, We like to have fun and laugh too.

P.S. If you are the one who is giving me red rep for this thread then give it up, it has been tried by other editors and it doesn't work.

 

I trust you've reported the URLs to ODP Minstrel - or did you expect somebody to trawl through over 4 million listings by hand?

We respond to such reports with great urgency (and we see failure to report as complicity).

It could be of course that you're merely saying that a friend of a friend met a man who heard on the grapevine .....

 

I would like to note this as an admittance that these types of sites get into DMOZ in the first place. Hmmm wonder how that happens?

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse, Jim? Or did you just not bother to read the thread before following the DMOZ script ("open mouth - spew canned DMOZ speech")?

The list is in the initial post of this thread and has been public for some time now. Here it is again for those who can't be bothered to go back to find it:

http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html

Note this statement at page bottom:

This is just a partial and quickly harvested list of examples:

Can you explain to me, Jim, why any of these sites requires multiple listings at all, let alone the reported numbers of multiple lostings?

 

minstrel,

You are being too harsh on DMOZ editors, as they always explain the goal of DMOZ and it's editors is to list high quality and useful sites and after looking at pictures of some editors in their ODP profile, I believe that they find sites like:

1186 160 ALLSEXSITES.COM
1418 132 WORLDWIDEWEBPORNO.COM
1433 132 ALL-FREE-QUALITY-PICS.COM
1492 126 PORNZITE.COM
910 208 FREE-SEX-PICS-FREE-SEX-PICS-FREE-SEX-PICS.COM
993 193 WORLDSEXPLACE.COM
2151 86 SEX-MARKS.COM
2246 82 XTRASEX.COM
2287 81 RAWAMATEURVIDEO.COM
4700 39 NUDE-SEX-FREE-PORN-PICS.COM
6762 27 TEENSEX-FREE-NUDE-PORN-PICS.COM

EXCEPTIONALLY USEFUL.

 

Sorry for the delay in responding - I've spent all day taking the missus to Wales.

It's certainly an admission that such a thing is possible but we don't deliberately list illegal wewbsites. You're perhaps unaware that a website's content can be changed subsequently by the site owner.

@minstrel

I did notice some discussion about multiple links and adult links in ODP. I don't dispute that they exist but don't plan to get involved in that topic of conversation .

In post 102, you said that child porn was listed in ODP. That's a very different and enormously serious matter and I didn't notice any such claim being made previously.

If you know this for a fact, it's essential that you report the URLs and preferably the categories that they are listed in so that we can take prompt action. Obviously you won't want to post them here, but you can send them to me via my profile in the sig below.

If you don't, there are only two possible conclusions. Either your claim is false or you are happy to see such sites remain listed.

 

OK, I (and others) have explained that there are certain areas of the directory where editors have felt that deeplinking sites was/is both appropriate and desirable.

These include news articles, recipes and adult sites (and there may be others). Now you can debate about the usefullness of that - and believe me, the editors do revisit it and debate from time to time.

But to repeatedly bring it up time after time, expecting some sort of different reply from editors, and to be disappointed and angry that all you get is the "standard ODP BS" as a reply seems a little futile. Because the "standard ODP BS" is the answer. Asking for a different answer won't help.

We have said that there are some inconsistencies in the ODP that get remedied when our attention is brought to them because we can't systematically monitor the millions of listed sites. We have said that there have been some things deliberately done because the editors felt it was in the interests of building a better directory (recipes, news articles, adult, etc.). That is the answer. There can't be another answer because that is the truth.

Reminds me a little of one of my favourite Einstein quotes:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

 

Is this the reason that you just keep repeating the ODP editor's BS and hope one day that we will accept it?

 

No, it's the reason I am going to stop trying to find new ways to answer the same questions.

You have made the point about the multiple sites. Several times. You have been given an answer. You don't like the answer (hence you dismiss it as "BS"). You seem to feel that repeating the question will somehow get you a different answer, or a different result. How you choose to expend your energy is, of course, your deal. Likewise for me.

 

I understand your anger, it must be frustrating for you and other editors that people don't stop complaining about the corruption and put the editor's livelihood in danger.

I am not looking for answer from editors, I am looking for a way to destroy DMOZ corruption.

 

It would be great as mentioned above to even get a single listing - would like to know as well how much it costs!

 

I don't think that they will give price in this thread, but there are many DMOZ editors in this forum, may be you can PM them instead for the price.

 

I suppose you could argue that it depends on your definition of "child porn", jimnoble, but you can do your own search within that list. And you still haven't answered the question about why any of those sites "merits" that many listings.

Alucard, I expect better of you -- that's bafflegab and you know it. We're not talking about a few listings here, we're talking about dozens, hundreds, even thousands.

And why one earth would ANY porn site "merit" more than one listing? (I might ask why would DMOZ list any porn sites at all but I won't.)

 

Please don't wriggle. You mentioned child porn so you must know what you mean by it. For now, I'm quite happy to accept your definition.

This isn't an editor baiting game; it's serious. If there is any substance to your claims, let me have the links.

 

Jimnoble

Since you are one of those who defends the quality of DMOZ and it's editors, let see what you define as a quality that all people on Internet should be thankful to DMOZ for it. I just visited one of the sites mentioned in minstrel list pornzite with 126 links and let's see what turns a DMOZ editor that deserves 126 listing. This is a partial list of the links in their entry page:

"F*sting king"
"object Freaks"
"Shocking BDSM"
"P*e lover"
"Closeup P*e"
"Drinking Pi*s"
"Tortured Girl"

I am amazed of the level of quality that is provided, we should really thank you and the rest of DMOZ meta editors for this level of quality.

I also undertstand now, why most people can not become editors since you must have a real twisted mind to appreciate such quality of links, after all most of us just like normal sex.

There is also new change in 2257 regulation from 23rd of June that any site that doesn't have 2257 records regarding the age of models is considered child porn and illegal. I looked at couple of mentioned site and none of these sites had the 2257 declartion on the site, so they are breaking the US law. Therefore DMOZ directory is providing links to illegal, child porn sites.

USC 18 &2257

 

Jimnoble

Since you are one of those who defends the quality of DMOZ and it's editors, let see what you define as a quality that all people on Internet should be thankful to DMOZ for it. I just visited one of the sites mentioned in minstrel list pornzite with 126 links and let's see what turns a DMOZ editor that deserves 126 listing. This is a partial list of the links in their entry page:

"F*sting king"
"object Freaks"
"Shocking BDSM"
"P*e lover"
"Closeup P*e"
"Drinking Pi*s"
"Tortured Girl"

I am amazed of the level of quality that is provided, we should really thank you and the rest of DMOZ meta editors for this level of quality.

I also undertstand now, why most people can not become editors since you must have a real twisted mind to appreciate such quality of links, after all most of us just like normal sex.

There is also new change in 2257 regulation from 23rd of June that any site that doesn't have 2257 records regarding the age of models is considered child porn and illegal. I looked at couple of mentioned site and none of these sites had the 2257 declartion on the site, so they are breaking the US law. Therefore DMOZ directory is providing links to illegal, child porn sites.

USC 18 &2257

 

I hear what you say about 2257 but if that's what minstrel was referring to, I'm sure he'd have mentioned it.

I'm concerned about hunting down any actual child porn that we have listed and I'm not particularly interested in legal algorithms with territorial applicability.

A definite claim was made.
I asked for the URLs so that I could take appropriate actions.
They haven't yet been forthcoming.
I'll let you know when/if they do.