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.
  2. Better Analytics for WordPress Get It Free

Oh My look what Dmoz Accepted to Their Listing.

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by paidhosting, Apr 29, 2006.

  1. #1
    paidhosting, Apr 29, 2006 IP
  2. adnan

    adnan Peon

    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    82
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    heehheeheh.

    I submitted Linkspup to dmoz like last week. Lets see.

    any idea how much older i will get waiting for an answer?
     
    adnan, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  3. vlasta

    vlasta Peon

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Nothing bad with that category, but I guess someone should definitely re-review sites #2 and #4 (and maybe do something nasty to the editor, who added them).
    #2 (edit: now #1) - Open Directory Review from Search Engine Showdown - minimum content, just 1 page of useless faq and fancy fake menu
    #4 (edit: now #3) - Why the Open Directory isn't Open - just one article about the topic? And there seem to be multiple similar entries for traffick.com. (Who the hell could do this?...)
     
    vlasta, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  4. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,092
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    460
    #4
    I only see three entries in that category now.
     
    minstrel, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  5. vlasta

    vlasta Peon

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    ...hm... hxxp://www.dmozsucks.org/ was removed since my last post. :~)
     
    vlasta, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  6. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,210
    Likes Received:
    602
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #6
    Here too. I dont see a dmozsucks site. Its funny that the one from the editor still needs $33 (from 2000!!) to get the site online. someone chock up that $33 and see if this guy is still alive LOL
     
    lorien1973, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  7. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,301
    Likes Received:
    341
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #7
    Yes, I think we have established DMOZ lists sites based on preference, not impartiality.
     
    dvduval, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  8. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,092
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    460
    #8
    I think this also establishes that DMOZ can move quickly when they care to. That would suggest that all the lame excuses about how long it's taking to get rid of pro-pedophilia and child pornography sites are just that -- excuses for delaying action. :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  9. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,702
    Likes Received:
    348
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    Lets be fair, there are no child pornography sites listed in DMOZ and there have never been any as far as I can tell.

    Editors are working on it, but I can't think of any reason why persons opposed to the current content of the pedophile categories can't look for more suitable sites and submit them for listing. If you think it's futile because they wouldn't be reviewed in a timely manner feel free to send your suggestions directly to me. I'll be working on it for awhile, any help would be welcome and appreciated.

    Added: Please send appropriate suggestions for the pedophilia category to me, I promise I'll look at them.

    For an example of something I'd consider appropriate, please take a look at this site I found yesterday, immediately listed after careful reveiw and "cooled" ...I "cool" less than one site a year, but this is the type of site that someone looking for anti-pedophilia information would find extremely useful, IMO:
    No Tolerance for Pedophiles - Educating the public about pedophiles and predators, including juvenile sex offenders. Includes information about protecting children and exposes pedophile propaganda.
     
    compostannie, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  10. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,210
    Likes Received:
    602
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #10
    That's kinda funny.

    Looks like the cat has been updated (very recently). Take a look at the cache of the pages and tell me no sites have been listed before.

    Recently, as in about 12 hours ago: Last update: 23:03 PT, Saturday, April 29, 2006
     
    lorien1973, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  11. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,092
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    460
    #11
    I think you continue to operate on a rather narrow definition of "pornography".

    http://www.google.com/search?source...GLJ,GGLJ:2006-05,GGLJ:en&q=define:pornography

    1. Pornography doesn't have to be images - chat rooms and other sites discussing sex with children is child pornography.

    2. Sites which portray images of over-18 models in such a way as to imply that they are young teens may not constitute child pornography in a legal sense but I can and would make an argument that in an ethical-moral sense that is also child pornography.
     
    minstrel, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  12. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    That was a cache of pedophilia related sites, the one Annie is working on. There is a difference between child pornography and pedophilia. Child pornography is a class of material for pedophiles and sites containing this type of material have always been banned and their owners reported to the authorities. The pedophilia sites did (and probably do still until Annie gets to them) contain other material designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles which are also now banned but which a very small number of editors, until recently, thought could be listed.

    [Added: though you make some good points minstrel. Either class of site is IMO equally as bad]
     
    brizzie, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  13. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,092
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    460
    #13
    Yes, but see my post above.
     
    minstrel, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  14. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Yep - I edited my post when I saw yours.
     
    brizzie, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  15. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,702
    Likes Received:
    348
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Well, duh!!! If you go back and read my post you'd see that I clearly said I'm working on it. Of course it has changed in the last 12 hours, that's what "working on it" means. Thank you for confirming that! :rolleyes:

    Minstrel, morally I'm in complete agreement with you about your interpretation of what should be considered pornography. In reality pedophilia is not pornography, but we both already know that.
     
    compostannie, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  16. vlasta

    vlasta Peon

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    Why are you turning this into another pedophilia thread? I am tempted to redrep you all.
     
    vlasta, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  17. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,702
    Likes Received:
    348
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    Because I've spent almost all my time this week working on fixing that category and when I take a break and see the opinion stated that nothing's being done it's demoralizing. I defend my work. I don't exactly enjoy working on this topic you know.

    Besides, all threads in this forum turn into another pedophilia thread sooner or later. Staying on topic is so last year. ;)

    Added 30 minutes later...
    Vlasta, the topic of this thread is "Oh My look what Dmoz Accepted to Their Listing." and we're talking about DMOZ listings, I don't get why you have a problem with the discussion. It's clearly marked as a discussion about DMOZ listings, you don't have to read it if you don't want to.

    The reason I came back after 30 minutes to edit my post is that I realized I lied. We do have a Child Pornography category. I haven't checked the listings, but I'm sure someone/everyone from this forum will do it and let us know of any problems.
     
    compostannie, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  18. livingearth

    livingearth Active Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    83
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #18
    I think it's disgusting that ODP even has a pedophilia catagory...
     
    livingearth, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  19. johneva

    johneva Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    37
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #19
    Bang on fella!

    Thats exactly it why is there any need to cover such things at all?
     
    johneva, Apr 30, 2006 IP
  20. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,092
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    460
    #20
    This article - When kid porn isn't kid porn: images of naked children that don't meet the strict legal definitions of child pornography - is an interesting one related to our discussion, although again I think the author is using an overly restrictive definition of "porn as images".

    Again, I think the issue it raises is the distinction between legal liability and social-ethical-moral responsibility. What individual websites do is one thing; what an organization like DMOZ does is another because of the influence or stature it has acquired, deservedly or not. My opinion is that DMOZ should be less concerned with legal liability and more concerned with social-ethical-moral responsibility.
     
    minstrel, Apr 30, 2006 IP