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.

How to get listed in DMOZ, the easy way. 2 days.

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by gworld, Apr 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Genie

    Genie Peon

    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    32
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #221
    Changing any system is an upheaval. If the decision is made when a directory starts up that it will not list certain types of site, that is far easier than trying to change its coverage years down the line.

    I notice that some of the better directories which have started up in recent years either don't list pills, porn, casino sites at all, or are very circumspect. It is in their own interests so to be, since linking to 'bad neighbourhoods' could cost them dear in Google.
    SEMrush
     
    Genie, Sep 11, 2006 IP
    SEMrush
  2. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #222
    That's a cop-out, Genie. I think you know that. It's not like this week was the first time this topic has been raised, externally OR internally. There is no will inside DMOZ to make the necessary changes. You know that as well as I do. That is the reason it hasn't changed and will not change - there are simply too many people in the inner sanctum who like DMOZ just the way it is.
     
    minstrel, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  3. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #223

    Did a Meta or an Admin wrote this for you? It seems it is coming directly from DMOZ excuse play book. Let's summarize your post.

    "blah,blah, blah you are bad, you are corrupt. May be there is some times, small corruptions in DMOZ but the "great leader" are fighting hard against it. I don't know more and you can not turn me against my beloved masters. We can not do anything more. I pledge my solid obedience to my "great leaders" and masters."

    As I said previously, I can see why you can be an Admin material. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  4. Genie

    Genie Peon

    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    32
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #224
    Minstrel - I think you are saying the same thing as me, but in more censorious language. Change is difficult because people get used to the way things are. It is uncomfortable to change. It takes effort. And that's just if one person is involved. If you have thousands of people involved, it can require a gigantic effort to shift that community by the smallest degree. That's human psychology.

    What makes it more difficult in this case is that reduction would be needed. Reduction is pretty well always less popular than expansion. On a personal level: move to a larger house and the family is happy. They soon spread out and fill the place. Move to a smaller house and there will be agonies over which possessions to throw/give away. For the ODP expansion has always been a major goal. So cutting out bits of the directory is painful. There will always be agonised debate, sometimes for years, before that can happen. Work has gone into those areas - many man-hours of it.

    It would take a massive internal shift for the ODP to steel itself to the radical surgery I suggest. Would it be worth it? I think so. But others might feel that the upheaval is the last thing we need.
     
    Genie, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  5. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #225
    No. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that change is "difficult" at DMOZ because there is a significant and influential faction within DMOZ that does not WANT any change. They have their own reasons (i.e., vested interest) in keeping everything the way it is. It has nothing to do with "comfort level" or fear of change. It has everything to do with personal benefits, whether that means perceived power or financial rewards, accruing from the status quo.
     
    minstrel, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  6. Ivan Bajlo

    Ivan Bajlo Peon

    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    92
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #226
    Well instead of doing Mao's giant leap forward lets start with small steps by isolating most problematic categories and giving all other cats breathing space. Problem categories would be left for senior editors to do whatever the hell they want with them (block submissions etc.) while the rest would get a lot more freedom of movement (easier editor approval, more public access, less witch hunts etc.) to allow them normal growth instead of being dragged down with the rest.

    This should allow healthy part of DMOZ to start growing again and maybe give it some purpose again?
     
    Ivan Bajlo, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  7. popotalk

    popotalk Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    522
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #227
    Yes that is true. It hurts the people involve as much as the company itself but benefitting both.
    Sorry Genie. Like any other corrupt government in power, people in ranks would do anything to hold on.
     
    popotalk, Sep 11, 2006 IP
    Blogmaster likes this.
  8. Genie

    Genie Peon

    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    32
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #228
    Vested interests certainly enter into this. Naturally the porn/pills/casinos webmasters among our editors would be totally against the removal! However they are a tiny handful now. They couldn't possibly stand against the combined weight of 7,000 editors wanting change. So we get back to the issue of the dynamics of change.

    But no-one would lose power or rank simply from the pruning of certain branches of the directory. A few editors who only have categories in the affected branches would be left with nothing to do. That's all.
     
    Genie, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  9. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #229
    That would have been true if DMOZ was a democracy but those few corrupt editors effectively control the directory. May be you haven't noticed that many of admins always support the corrupt side of the equation. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  10. Genie

    Genie Peon

    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    32
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #230
    (sigh) Only in your twisted fantasy. None of the Admins has any affiliations in the porn/pills/casinos range. They are not corrupt. They do not support corruption. (sigh)
     
    Genie, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  11. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #231
    How do you know? :rolleyes:

    They just support it out of their goodness of their heart. I mean what better way to serve the humanity than making it possible to list illegal web sites that can involve minors, rape, torture and bestiality or help the gamblers to find casions or the drug addicts to get prescription drugs. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  12. popotalk

    popotalk Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    522
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #232
    Pardon me Genie. But that number is innacurate. I would certainly agree with you on half.

    They want change ? But they have no voice or power against the Admins and Metas. Fear of being locked out. That is why they just keep their mouth shut. I know a few.

    This only implies to the democratic process. Unless a Marxist rule of Forced Changes.

    In the corrupt government they stay on. No matter what. Even if there is no branch to hold on.
     
    popotalk, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  13. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #233
    How do you know they do? Do you have documentary evidence or are you just throwing around unsubstantiated allegations again. Two add two equals seventy-six. I happen to think the DMOZ Admins would resign if they had any honour, given their complete failure to manage the project and their utterly contemptible and disgraceful behaviour over pedophile chat room listings, but there is a difference between being inept and incompetent and perhaps being toothless, and being corrupt. There is zero evidence that Admins are corrupt in any way, shape, or form, and no matter how many experienced editors might agree that they have completely mismanaged the project you will not find a single one that you could persuade that they were corrupt. Thus all you achieve through your unfounded and frankly ludicrous allegations is support for Admins from parties that would otherwise want them gone. Kinda counterproductive to your aims isn't it?
     
    brizzie, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  14. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #234
    Brizzie, be fair. No one really knows exactly what gworld's aims are except gworld. Although he throws out plenty of clues for us, they are often contradictory. :confused:
     
    compostannie, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  15. crossman

    crossman Peon

    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #235
    Gworld actually has real a aim? :rolleyes:
     
    crossman, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  16. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #236
    My evidence is their actions, decisions and postings in internal forum that in majority of time is in the support of corruption and abuse since I do not believe anyone can be that stupid and unaware of the result of their actions.
    If you want to claim that it is not because of corruption and it is the result of total lack of intelligence, competence, courage and common sense then I can live with that since I can not present any evidence that proves you are wrong. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  17. popotalk

    popotalk Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    522
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #237
    actually it's not exactly that. but definetely he is not involved in porn and he's far too much experienced in the web. ;)
     
    popotalk, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  18. crossman

    crossman Peon

    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #238
    Since when your way or view of what is evidence became what is officially and widely taken as what is evidence? :eek: :rolleyes: So is a editor or anyone suppose to agree with your views?

    Gman you really do live in your own world :p :D
     
    crossman, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  19. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #239
    I think there are a combination of factors.

    First, at least one Admin has spent quite a lot of time on building non-English Adult categories. To remove Adult branch would require unanimity of Admins not just a majority. That is unlikely to happen. It is a fault of the Admin committee system where all are equals - what should be an effective check/balance actually turns out to be a restriction on radical but positive change.

    Second, if you could get unanimity of Admins you would need to get AOL permission to remove a branch as it would be a fundamental change. As I understand it the AOL position is that pornography should be represented within DMOZ and they would be unlikely to agree to abolition.

    Third, there is a general culture within DMOZ that says to achieve change you need to get unanimous agreement or the status quo prevails. Thus a small group, even an individual if they are a meta, can block change permanently. Whatever the arguments there are free speechers within DMOZ who would fight abolition of Adult on the grounds that it would be censorship, even if you could somehow dismiss every vested interest.

    There is a will to make changes, even (according to evidence I have) by some Admins. Not least because it is a tremendous drain on resources. The fault lies in a culture that requires consensus for change not majority or even qualified majority, as well as corporate ownership that precludes the community from truly making its own decisions and management from being accountable to the community. The only real possibility, and it is only a slight possibility, is if Admins or AOL eventually come to the conclusion that downsizing is the only way to survive, in which case Adult would be the first to go.
     
    brizzie, Sep 11, 2006 IP
  20. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #240
    Hmmm, let's see. These are the people who, when confronted with pedophile chat rooms listed in the directory, not only did not take immediate action to remove them but castigated an editor that did and restored the sites to public view, then took weeks to decide that the sites were indeed bad for the DMOZ image and removed them again. Then claimed the delay was because it was difficult to reach agreement on a form of words. These are the people who did untold harm to the integrity of the directory way beyond anything any single corrupt editor has ever done by accepting cash for a listing. And they don't even think they did anything wrong, they blame others for kicking up a stink.
     
    brizzie, Sep 11, 2006 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.