Doesn't this just piss you off?

Not to mention they risk removal.

 

They cannot be removed if it just a few comments about the ODP at the same time they glorify it.
They can be removed by making it public the "how to make money online by selling the listing program." That is a Sekrit nobody has to mention. Then you will receive an e-mail from a Meta /Admin to file an abuse report or contact one of them to start an investigation which would end in La-la Land.

 

You are not really stupid enough to believe this crap are you? And if this coruption is so widespread and of such a scale then why can't you provide the evidence as you have declined to do at least a hundred times?

 

At one time affiliations were declared via a bookmarks category that was public. The Affiliations database was introduced at the same time as compulsion to declare all affiliations not just those that the editor might judge themselves to be "relevant". There is compulsion to declare all affiliations but no compulsion to use the Affiliations database. An editor can still use a public bookmarks category, or the database, or even forward details privately to a meta they trust. The choice to keep the affiliations secret is entirely down to the editor concerned not down to metas. The reason most editors choose to use the confidential database is that too many have had threats made via publicly affiliated websites or those websites have been hacked and vandalised. It is a balance between a need to declare affiliations and losing editors as a result of the potential and real consequences of doing it publicly. Some editors objected to listing their affiliations and said goodbye to editing.

It isn't corruption because no favour can be given to a client's site. An SEO / Editor must list some of their client's competitors at the same time, ensure there is no keyword stuffing or other such tricks, and most importantly ensure the client sites they list are listable and are declared. Corruption is where favours are exchanged under the table for services that are not permitted. This type of activity is specifically covered in the guidelines.

 

The end result of all this blah,blah, blah is, that someone can have a web site which is totally fine and list able and wait for years to be listed or never get listed and this same person can pay a senior editor a couple of hundred and gets the site listed in a matter of days.

If this is not selling listings and corruption then what is?

If you look at number of "listings" that those senior editors do every year and estimate that only 20% of the listings are this kind of "SEO project" , it will give a good estimate about the amount of income "senior" editor can have from their "volunteer" work.

 

Which "senior editors"? Very very few senior editors I know of are in the SEO business and they have no reason to tell lies since it is perfectly permissible under the guidelines. What would be the point of pretending to be a teacher and risking being expelled for being deceptive when you can simply tell the truth and list away without any danger. So there are a handful of senior editors who may or may not list clients' sites amongst many others. And of course that listing is only a tiny part of what they might do for a client.

There are plenty of senior editors who do not like the concept of SEO's in the ranks one little bit, and you can bet that a very close eye is kept on such people.

In some cases, an editor's business affiliation overlaps their involvement in the directory, such as with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals and Professional Content Providers (PCPs), whose participation may benefit both the editor and the directory. Instances when the involvement is mutually beneficial are acceptable, however, the primary focus and goal should always be to serve the best interests of the ODP and the editing community. Conducting unfair and deceptive activities to promote and support client listings will result in removal of editing privileges.

Clearly, if you are fortunate to have picked an ODP editor to do your SEO work, and your site is up to standard, it is perfectly possible you will get a listing a lot faster than someone who has not employed an SEO with an editor account. The editor will not have acted unfairly because to keep their account they will need to have listed their client's competitor sites at the same time and those competitors will not have paid anything to the editor for any services. Thus those competitors will get listed faster as a result.

Personally, I think that this could give a perception of unfairness nonetheless, and the moral and ethical lines are not that easy to delineate. You either ban all editors from listing any site they have any affiliation with, or you control it. Control is best because it removes a reason to be deceptive. One answer might be an allowance of say 5 affiliated sites listed for every 1000 others listed. Another is to remove the possibility of corruption by allowing editors to accept payment for legitimate listings subject to the same rules as at present - list competitors at the same time, no keyword stuffing, site must be listable, etc. The offence would be taking money or favours to list unlistable sites, those whose presence damages the directory. Whilst the current system is not corrupt it opens a door that some unscrupulous editors might well exploit, a possible loophole.

Nevertheless, as stated earlier, the number of senior editors who are SEOs is a small minority. So whilst the practice is possible and permissible, it is not widespread by any means.

 

Dont you think a site better than DMOZ would be useful both to the SEO community and the world.

 

I don't think a site useful to the SEO community is useful to the world. That is why DMOZ exists.

 

But as per my knowledge. DMOZ is more of use to the seo world than the real world. I think that if the seo community gets together and works on something better it is sure to work.

 

Does the above highlighted sentence even need an explanation?

The proper translation, if you buy a "senior" editor and have the editor in your back pocket, then you don't need to wait and your sites get listed at once.

How is it controlled that "senior" editor lists the competitions? It is not.

How is it controlled the "senior" editor lists the affiliation? It is not.

The whole guideline is nothing but bunch of BS, pretending that "senior" editors are not corrupt while they are selling listings to anyone who pays for their "SEO" services.

 

Proof? All I see is accusations and innuendo. Nothing more.

 

The editor(s) in question would not have to be in the SEO business or even to know anything about SEO to accept money for DMOZ listings. All they'd have to know is how to list a site and how to accept payment for doing so.

And there are other ways to use your position to make money, too, as macdesign (bobrat) was doing until he was outed a year or so ago - he was accepting money to give DMOZ status reports. He may even still be doing that for all I know and just not advertising it so blatantly any more. And he's clearly no SEO whiz... hell, the last time I looked at his Resourceless Zone signature he was still hawking nigritude ultramarine and that contest ended numerous months ago.

 

I am sure if I show the proof, you and neb will work very hard on doing nothing since you don't have any authority to see the affiliations or remove an editor.

How about you start with removing adult meta and the other editors that I have already mentioned? When Can I expect to see them removed?

Are you and neb related? The empty gestures are very similar.

 

I guess so - you are always right. No names, no proof, baseless accusations. Just typical double talk. And this fixes ODP how?

 

I'm guessing I didn't glorify it enough on how incredibly valuable it is.

Now I'm really down, nobody ever threatened me, hacked or vandalized my website and all my affiliations were public as they can publicly be.

This to me sounds like worse Conflict of Interest then sounds of my posts - listing clients or personal website what is the difference except that personal websites are usually finitive number while clients can go on to infinity?

 

LOL, here is some of the previous posts, just tell us when you have removed the editors.


http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1304674&postcount=205

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=1077598&highlight=phone#post1077598

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=1048656&highlight=phone#post1048656

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=621336&postcount=1004

 

It is conflict of interest, corruption and abuse of editing privilege. You can see how bad the conflict is when even brizzie with all his writings can not find good enough excuses that at least sound reasonable.

 

The control is in the repercussions for not listing the competition and not declaring, removal. There is no reason to risk a senior editor account by being deceptive in this way, the logical thing to do is to list competition and declare and there are no possible repercussions under the guidelines. Why would they not?

You also missed out that whilst the client may be listed quicker, so would their competition.

It is true that since SEO business is unregulated anyone could set themselves up as an SEO and exploit the guidelines legitimately. Very few actually do.

Bobrat was not doing anything anyone couldn't have done, his status as an editor was irrelevant to the activity. I believe the data was obtained from the publicly available RDF dump. Why should he, or any other editor, be constrained from activities anyone could do?

As I said in http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=130008 , the ODP has always been a commercial money making venture for some, quite legitimately.

 

One reason can be that they don't want to show how many listings they sell per year. When I made a posting about the price of DMOZ listings, I got couple of PM that offered money for listing their sites. Now imagine, if I wanted to do this, I would use one of my accounts for such listings. How much money could I make before by a remote chance, I was discovered and removed? The people paying me, certainly would not talk about it since their listings could possibly be removed too.
Even if I am removed, would I care? I can always make a new accounts since as senior editor I can accept myself as an editor, can't I?

the ODP has always been a commercial money making venture for some

the ODP has always been a commercial money making venture for some

the ODP has always been a commercial money making venture for some


And that some are called "senior" editors, selling listings, making money from affiliate sites and call all this very very commercial ventures, a "volunteer" work.

 

I am not making any excuses, I think there is inconsistency in the claims that editors don't accept money for listings whilst there are clearly instances where an editor will list a client's site as long as no money changes hands specifically for that service. I don't think it is practical to prohibit editors having clients in their professional lives so I would suggest an alternative whereby editors can become regulated professional listers, if that is how they want to operate. Control it by bringing it into the open and regulating - complete prohibition rarely works no matter what the subject as borderline characters will always work the system whereas law abiders suffer. As long as the listings are within DMOZ guidelines and there is no tampering with competitors then no matter how the site gets listed it adds to the overall objective of DMOZ. And as long as free listings are always available to those who want to wait for a hobbyist editor.