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. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #121
    That is part of the problem with DMOZ in general. The aim of DMOZ is almost never to FIX a problem, it is almost always to HIDE a problem.
    SEMrush
     
    gworld, Jun 12, 2006 IP
    SEMrush
  2. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #122
    Not true and you know it. The editor who put those sites there was removed as editor a long time ago. Come on gworld, play fair, it gets you farther. ;)
     
    compostannie, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  3. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #123
    Who are you talking about? Phone... is removed? :confused:
     
    gworld, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  4. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #124
    Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were talking about the pedophilia sites.

    I remember you dropping hints about the phone sites but I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with you on that.
     
    compostannie, Jun 12, 2006 IP
    orlady likes this.
  5. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #125
    You're thinking cynical... thinspiration isn't a word, you cannot use it in a description. Had I still been an editor and had my attention drawn to that category I would have gone in and removed it too.

    You have submitted evidence of listings in the past that were listed by removed editors. But then you knew the abuse systems had worked already because you were an editor and could see the removals before you presented the evidence. Anyone can point to evidence of a crime when the criminal has been convicted and punished. Then you pointed at listings which complied with Adult listing practices at the time even if they did not appear to comply with policies elsewhere in the directory. I agreed that the perception of abuse existed even if no actual abuse had taken place. I believe I was reasonably vocal in support of rectifying the matter by reforming Adult listing practices.

    What you have not done is present hard evidence that proves that any serving editor has favoured their own sites to the disadvantage of competitor sites. You have not presented hard evidence that any serving editor has accepted money or favours in exchange for listings. You have not presented any hard evidence that any serving editor has listed sites against accepted practice in the Adult branch. You have not presented any hard evidence of any serving editor holding multiple accounts (except your own admission). What you have presented is assumptions based on conclusions drawn from circumstances which appear suspicious but which don't constitute hard evidence. You are so fond of quoting the law on this, the law on that, the legal position on the other. Get some hard and incontrovertible evidence that would stand up to scrutiny and which is not just your skew on things and maybe just maybe you are worth listening to. Until then it is hot air, speculation, and suspicion. Which has been checked time and time again by editor after editor after editor who has found nothing whatsoever to pin a case on. All they have found is legacy listings by removed editors and listing practices which made things appear on the surface to be suspicious.

    Don't get me wrong, you spin a good yarn, and do your best to make DMOZ management appear weak and ineffectual with regard to abuse. But you would be the first to scream blue murder if an editor came here and claimed they were removed unfairly, all they were doing was following what the other editors in the branch were doing. Your aim is to put DMOZ management into a no win situation no matter what they do. If you don't remove X then it is proof of high level conspiracy to support corruption. You have removed X without proper evidence and that is proof of high level conspiracy to support corruption. You have removed X but that was a sacrifice to save the high level conspiracy to support corruption and we all know X is also Y and Z. Nothing will ever satisfy you gworld so it is not surprising if all those editors who cared enough to check what you said no longer bother. And stick with the internal abuse processes that most editors trust works to eliminate those proven guilty and protect others against whom the evidence is circumstantial and no more.
     
    brizzie, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #126
    Hard evidence according to brizzie:

    1) It is not enough that multiple deep links belong to the editor, because editors can have multiple deep links for their own site.

    2) It is not enough that editors competition sites will stay in submission line and will not be reviewed, editors don't have to.

    3) It is not enough th show financial gain by multiple deep links in comparison to yahoo link listing which costs $600/link

    4) It is not enough that these links are affiliate links that generate income for editors.

    All the above are acceptable according to DMOZ management and not an abuse. If any one can have sworn statement by the abusive editor that he/she has abused the directory and have a bank statement that shows money has been transfered, then and only may be then it can be considered a hard evidence, that may be can result in editor removal. :rolleyes:

    LOL, you are just so funny. Please tell us, how can editors trust a process that they have no idea about how it works. This is called FAITH and not TRUST. It is very common in cults.
     
    gworld, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  7. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #127
    If they show no favour to their own sites and list competitor sites on an equal basis then no abuse exists provided that the branch permits deeplinking of the sort concerned. Can you prove a serving editor has done otherwise?

    Do you have evidence of this or is it guesswork on your part? Have you examined the editing records of your suspects and identified that their listing of sites they are personally connected with is disproportionate with the listings of their competitors?

    What the f*** are you talking about? What has the cost of a Yahoo link got to do with DMOZ editing practices? Isn't the value of a DMOZ listing based on Google PR as a result of a listing? And can you prove a link with Google PR that amounts to $600 per deeplink?

    Do you have hard evidence that editor X listed sites owned by themselves that contained inappropriate levels of affiliate links compared with sites they listed belonging to competitors? Or can you prove conspiracy between editor X and editor Y over such listings? Or can you prove that editor X and editor Y are the same person? Many have looked for such links based on your allegations, none have been found.

    Are you suggesting editors should be removed on the basis of your assumptions, conclusions, and suspicions, with no evidence that they have treated competitor sites any less favourably than their own, without any evidence they have corruptly accepted money or favours, without any evidence that they have edited against the accepted practices of a branch, and without any evidence of conspiracy, collusion, or multiple account holding? If you want to nail a corrupt editor then you need a lot more than assumptions, conclusions, and suspicions. Bank statements and confessions would be nice but they aren't necessary if you do your homework properly.

    By witnessing it in action.
     
    brizzie, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #128
    They have witnessed and they know exactly what is all about. You should listen to what editors call the admins and Metas in PM, email and messenger. I will probably get banned, if I repeat it here. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  9. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #129
    Have you been talking to yourself again gworld? Those multiple accounts will send you mad in the end. ;)
     
    brizzie, Jun 12, 2006 IP
    lmocr likes this.
  10. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #130
    Actually some of those editors are the same people who defend DMOZ in public. Obviously they know with all the gray areas in the guidelines, any abuse can be justified and any simple mistake can become an abuse that results in removal. It seems many editors have adopted the policy of defending DMOZ in public and only express their real opinion in private. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  11. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #131
    I am not saying abuse doesn't go on. I am not saying some suspicions are not accurate. I am saying that suspicions are not good enough. Evidence is required and that sometimes takes hard work. And as in any good judicial system the suspects are innocent until proven guilty. There was a case (actually referenced in DP a while back) I investigated but in the end all I had was circumstancial evidence and when I passed it on no-one could find anything more. The editor, a crook I was certain, remained in place. I hadn't proved the case. It took a year of waiting for him to make a mistake. He did, he got nailed, he got removed, he squealed and squealed and squealed. He actually alleged I was one of his competitors - fact was I had only visited his country once, on a day trip in 1988, and had no possible connection with his industry. Catching abusers requires patience and painstaking research to build a case. Your preference for drama and half-baked conspiracy theories might get you more attention but it is ultimately self-defeating when people switch off and stop listening to anything you say.

    When it comes to the practices in Adult I am on record, numerous times, in pointing out the perception of abuse that could/would/was arising with those practices relating to image gallery deeplinking. And that the only real way of eliminating that perception and creating a situation where abuse was visible and detectable is reform of those deeplinking practices. Which I am certain made me as popular as a fart in an elevator in some sectors of DMOZ. But perception is not the same as evidence and it is evidence that is required to remove an editor. And that is how it should be to prevent malicious false allegations being levelled against the innocent.
     
    brizzie, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  12. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #132
    Editors are removed with smallest excuse if they are troublesome for Admins or Metas while abusive editors stay on year after year because there is always a new excuse in the ever gray land of guidelines that while what they have done looks and feels like corruption, it is really not abuse. :rolleyes:
    DMOZ system does not protect any innocent, only the corrupt. Innocents do not need the secrecy and shadows to hide their innocence, secrecy and shadows are the best friends of the corrupts. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 12, 2006 IP
  13. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #133
    um, yes we do. I recall being accused of being a child pornographer, of having illegal sites and of using DMOZ to promote those illegal sites. Innocent DMOZ editors are easy targets of false accusations so personally I'm grateful for the secrecy.
     
    compostannie, Jun 13, 2006 IP
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #134
    I hate to break it to you but the world doesn't revolve around you. Don't you think this is getting old, it is the same kind of thing when you mentioned that I am attacking you in PM and when I posted the PM, it showed there was nothing there. You also claimed Vulcano attacked you in internal forum which we both now it is not true.
    And before you mention it for 101 times again, thank you for 101 times that you reviewed those pedophile listings.
     
    gworld, Jun 13, 2006 IP
  15. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #135
    Of course it's getting old, thank you for noticing. ;)

    When you keep bringing up the same old fallacious arguments, consistently twist the truth and claim to have given proof when all you've shown is repetition, you can't really expect anything fresh in response, can you? ;)

    btw, just a reminder... we aren't done with the pedophile sites. You said you know of a lot more and I'm still waiting for your next revelation so I can go zap it. :)
     
    compostannie, Jun 13, 2006 IP
  16. Old Welsh Guy

    Old Welsh Guy Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    291
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #136
    Even I am getting fed up of this now :)(

    How about the best looking blonde from DMOZ and the best looking brunet from those against DMOZ, settle it in a professional manner with a mud or jelly wrestle?
     
    Old Welsh Guy, Jun 13, 2006 IP
  17. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #137
    It is getting old because your post had nothing to do with my post in regard to a more open and honest handling of abuse reporting. ;)


    It won't work since "supposedly" every one in DMOZ is an old lady who does not know anything about computers or web. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 13, 2006 IP
  18. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #138
    Gosh gworld, I hate to break it to you but the world doesn't revolve around you. :D
    My post certainly was about your post regarding the handling of abuse reporting. You're so cute when you get ornery, maybe you need a nap. ;)
     
    compostannie, Jun 13, 2006 IP
    shadow575 likes this.
  19. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #139
    Siddy's wife is sure going to be surprised to find out that he's an old lady. :D
     
    lmocr, Jun 13, 2006 IP
  20. shadow575

    shadow575 Peon

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    38
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #140
    :eek: I don't know anyone named secrecy, and last time I checked I wasn't an old lady either ;)
     
    shadow575, Jun 13, 2006 IP
    lmocr likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.