Doesn't this just piss you off?

* the original founders sold the thing for money. No volunteer sentiment but a business transaction.
* Netscape and AOL have their names on 600,000 pages - cheap advertising.
* at least half of all editors join to list their own site(s), some of them going on to become editalls and metas.
* Netscape/AOL employees have drawn salaries for editing duties in the past
* Also in the past companies have been invited to nominate employees as editors to add specific listings.
* Web designers, SEOs, webmasters, are all welcome to join and to list their sites and those of their clients. Whilst there may not be a specific fee for a DMOZ listing and they cannot advertise the fact, the quickest legitimate way to get a listing is to employ an SEO who is also an editor.

 

If we remove all the blah, blah and only highlight the important section, DMOZ listings are for sale by "senior" editors and if you don't want to wait then just pay up.

 

Not for sale, the listing is free. And not "senior" editors, any editor who happens also to be an SEO can legitimately list a listable site belonging to their client. As I keep saying, very few senior editors are SEOs and have clients of this nature.

 

Just to be clarify you claim widespread abuse by senior editors making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and in proof you offer up a low level editor of obscure categories who may or may not be doing dodgy things. Pathetic.

 

Little neb can't even do anything about a "low level" editor and likes us to believe the speeches about his powers. Are you mad because I shattered your dreams about your self importance?

 

You claim that you have been in law enforcement, if this was a criminal case of bribery, do you know of any judge or jury that buys in to such stupid explanation?

 

Neb, I think I must have missed where you indicated what you were doing about these issues:

Can you bring me up to date on what progress you've made recently, please?

 

It isn't. But prosecutions generally require actual physical evidence of a law being broken. If the law is worded to permit a certain type of activity then it is unlikely a case would be prosecuted if the only evidence was of that exempted activity. Even more unlikely there would be a guilty verdict. Probable that the prosecution would be castigated for wasting a court's time. If an SEO / Editor has not advertised or billed for a DMOZ listing, has listed a client's site, it was listable, competitors have been listed at the same time, the listing was titled and described in accordance with guidelines, and the client's site was declared, then said editor has followed the rules to the letter, has committed no offence, and there is no case to answer. You may argue that the "law" is flawed, but no judge or jury could convict on what they think the law should say, only on what it does say.

It is around 18 years since I last issued a caution to a suspect but I don't think the principles have changed - you can't charge someone for following rules to the letter even if their activities are not what the legislators intended - the responsibility is with the legislators not to create loopholes they did not intend to be used.

 

Where does it say in DMOZ guideline that is permitted to get paid for listings?

According to your definition of bribery, anyone in the government can claim that the bribe that they received was not because they granted a favor to the person who paid the bribe but because in their free time they wash cars and the bribe was a payment for washing the car. It must be a loophole in the law that does not specifically states that public officials can not wash cars in their free time.

I think if you explain this situation to 100 reasonable person in the street, 99 will agree that this is selling listings and corruption and the only person who won't agree will be a DMOZ editor or AKA DMOZ apologist.

 

The way I see it - the real problem is, as most of us are hinting at, Google's use of the ODP as its own directory.

I would gladly pay for a Google directory listing, on the grounds that I knew it would/would not be listed, and in a very short order. Google is a hybrid entity, consisting of both commercial and non-commercial listings. This is one area where Yahoo has it right - their directory. Free listings for non-commercial, and paid for commercial. Simple.

With Google out of the equation, DMOZ could go back to doing what it does best, and much more efficiently. There would be no need to pay anyone, and no need for rumors of accusation.

To take it one step further - a global declaration of "no follow" on the whole ODP would put this issue to bed forever. I guess that would also test the merits of ODP. Would it still get used as a resource for finding "quality" sites?

I was once banned from the ODP resource zone for a heated debate over the use of ODP as Google's directory.

 

That's the way DMOZ operates. They have thousands of site linked to NFL.com, About.com, and other important websites. Basicly they use these sites, when they don't have enough filler for certain categories (yes they are considered important sites, but this is the way they operate).

I have one site listed in DMOZ and can't get another in. Does DMOZ need to be fair? Life is not fair.

 

It doesn't and the SEO / Editors don't advertise or accept money for listings. And I've pointed you at the guidelines that do apply. They accept a client, and market their site. If the site fits the DMOZ criteria they may, if they wish, list it at no charge to the client provided they list the client's competitors and follow the other rules pertaining to conflicts of interest. If operated correctly those guidelines ensure that the client gets no advantage over their competitors. Bribery and corruption normally implies that the person doing the bribing gets an advantage over their competition. The problem comes when the guidelines are not operated correctly and abuse creeps in, in which case the editor should be removed. I have already acknowledged in that other thread that there are flaws in those guidelines that create an inconsistency, and suggested possible solutions.

If it wasn't for legal loopholes the whole profession of tax accountants would be out of business. As a wealthy man, gworld, I am sure you are aware of the concept of tax avoidance as opposed to tax evasion. One is legal, one will get you jail time. One or two senior editors, as well as regular editors, may well be engaged in account removal avoidance by acting strictly within the terms of the guidelines, even if against the spirit of the same. That, my friend, is life. You just have to be patient and wait till they overstep the mark. Then you nail them. I recall it took well over a year of waiting until a crooked editor I was watching tripped himself up and let go of a tiny snippet of information that nailed him - he was gone very shortly afterwards. It would be nice if you could wrap up every case in a fast-paced hour like a TV cop show. In most cases, as in real life, investigation is painfully slow and involves tedious attention to minor detail.

 

"the ODP has corrupt editors" - The world has about 1 billion corupt people so some might be editors?

 

Someone should just buy off DMOZ and start putting some adsense ads there and earning really money.
I wonder if Netscape would be interested in selling.

 

Why not just create a clone and add Adsense? Plenty have done so.

 

How do you figure? Last time I checked, there were over 6 billion people in the world. (you forgot about 5 billion - was that included in your margin of error?)

 

Read the ODP/DMOZ monthly reports, where they demonstrate that they have issues with basic mathematics.

 

Only 1 in 6 people in the world are corrupt maybe? And according to some they are all DMOZ editors...

It wouldn't surprise me if, amongst the 7000 odd current editors you could find 350 or so bent ones.

 

I think it's more like 6 out of 6 are corrupt. So, logically, there are some corrupt editors. (don't lie - we all know deep down we've got some rotten)

Everyone has their price. I'm unfortunate enough to know mine.

 

That sounds about right since the number of active "senior" editors is about 200-300, the rest don't have the opportunity to be corrupt in any significant manner.