Remove Listing from DMOZ

If you see illegal sites listed then please let us know what they are and where. If that is what they are then they will be removed.

They follow a set of published guidelines. Anyone who has evidence that an editor has broken those guidelines is welcome to submit an Abuse Report using the link on the main DMOZ site, presenting their evidence.

What was suggested effectively makes the site unlistable. Unlistable sites are removed. So it might work till we find a way around it. If people want to get rid of their DMOZ listing in such a way then it is up to them but IMO it is foolish if you don't know the effect that will have - if the webmaster wants the listing back because they made a mistake it will be a very long time coming.

 

Not this Sh*t again. I and others have informed the DMOZ editors (defenders) who were here before you and they disappear every time we supply the proof. Just ask the other editors who post here.

The abuse system is the biggest joke, you are either new and ignorant or do not want to see the truth. Many people have used the abuse system but nothing happens since the corrupt editors have the control of whole organization.

That is exactly what this person wants, to be removed. Is the last part or your posting a treat that DMOZ will punish any one who try to resist the bullying from DMOZ?

 

I've asked here for the URLs time and time again but none have ever been forthcoming - just generalised claims.

I say again what I said previously. Those who know of individual illegal sites listed in ODP, but refuse to divulge their URLs so that we can remove them, are condoning their presence (if indeed there are any).

I'm afraid the claimants who avoided the specifics last time around, and will no doubt do so again, lost my respect - not that that counts for much around here .

 

I can't speak for anyone else. Point me at a thread or post or PM me the URLs and I'll go have a look. If the sites are clearly illegal I will remove them personally. If I am not sure then I will report them personally to an Admin who can refer them to AOL's legal people if necessary. If they are not illegal then I'll tell you. As far as I know the sites listed must be legal where AOL's servers are located in California. It is also possible a site was legal when listed and has changed in content since - this is a quality control issue and not an indicator of irresponsibility by editors in listing it originally. With nearly 5 million sites listed it is difficult to ensure 100% of listings are absolutely pukka so we are grateful to people who point out the links that shouldn't be there. But you have to be specific as to which sites - we can't trawl all 5 million.

Not true and not credible - if this were true it would be impossible to hide it inside DMOZ. You are jumping to incorrect conclusions because you don't have inside information. I wish it was possible for you to see that inside information. I have personally reported abusive editors who have been removed. I have reported editors I thought were abusive and who were not removed because the evidence wasn't strong enough or I was mistaken. I have investigated a number of alleged acts of abuse from forums and found no case to answer though sometimes editor error was apparent and corrected. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=430878&postcount=12 for more detailed views.

Do you honestly think that a company of the reputation of AOL Time Warner, and CNN being a sister company, would tolerate abuse on any scale. Their staff oversee the operation and were until recently responsible for creating all the editalls and meta editors. In effect you are accusing AOL Time Warner of widespread corruption. That really would be big news. If it were true.

No, it is a simple statement of reality. When the site is delisted it will be clearly noted as to the reason - it is an unlistable site - previously unlistable sites are treated very cautiously as they are difficult to trust. Besides typical waiting times for sites to be reviewed can run into years. There is no bullying or threat implied - merely information to use or discard about the way things work, and I make no judgement as to the whether the information is fair or unfair - it just is...

This person did have their site removed. Already. And said "Anyway I'm glad that they acted on our requests.". The matter was solved. I really don't mind at all if webmasters deliberately make their sites unlistable - with hundreds of millions of potential replacements it makes not one jot of difference to the project. In my own personal opinion. I am more concerned about the damage they may do themselves by asking for a site to be delisted without getting to the bottom of the underlying problem.

 

That was my point at the beginning of this now 9-page thread. If a webmaster wants his site delisted, why the hell not just comply?

 

You forgot the "In my own personal opinion", it wasn't a statement of official policy! I told you I was sympathetic the last time the issue arose but in a minority - that was the only answer that emerged - if the webmaster makes the site unlistable then we will delist it. It proves beyond all doubt the owner (not a rival) wants the removal (one potential problem). An unlistable site is a no-brainer for any editor - they don't have to verify a request with the owner, they don't have to try and change an unchangeable policy, they don't risk their editor account by removing a listable site against the policy, it can be done without fuss or argument.

I know the fairness argument, I've used it, and failed to fully comprehend the opposition when it comes to a site of family photos. My personal concerns about the latest requests is that they become an avalanche that distracts editors from adding sites so together with a raft of other practical factors I would, on balance, be against setting a precedent of delisting listable sites on demand. My mind could be changed on that but I suspect I would remain in a small minority on an issue that has another answer - make the site unlistable. Both recent parties asking for delistings did get a satisfactory resolution it has to be said.

 

I think you know full well that's bafflegab, brizzie...

 

Please see http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=20316 where the specific issue to which I believe that gworld is referring is described at GREAT length, along with ample evidence of the tone that such discussions have taken. You can each decide for yourselves whether you really want to open up this issue again.

Other references to the same argument brought up by gworld:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=28893&page=3 and onward
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=22996&page=4 and onward

 

It's the same issue that's been discussed for 9 pages.

 

bafflegab - special blend of “incomprehensibility, ambiguity, verbosity and complexity”.

No, pragmatism and practicality. I fought once before on the losing side inside, I know the arguments against and can't counter them with anything new. Your idea of fairness and mine are more or less identical on this one minstrel. Fairness ain't always practical though, unfortunately.

 

I commend you for at least arguing for sanity, brizzie. It isn't a matter of fairness not being practical, though - it's a matter of "it's against the rules and we never change the rules".

If this was truly about identifying the request as coming from the webmaster, it would be easy - put the onus on the webmaster to prove s/he was the one making the request - all that need be done is that s/he add a small piece of text to the bottom of the home page saying "remove from DMOZ" or something similar - it wouldn't be necessary to deface the site or add illegal content and further damage the webmaster's business.

 

Good point minstrel.

We do change the rules though, but it requires (a) near consensus, (b) Admin level agreement, (c) AOL Time Warner approval for anything major. I can't see this one getting through, there are too many other changes happening and since the two cases that have cropped up for debate actually resulted in the sites being delisted I don't think it would make the AOB part of the agenda. That is one of the practicalities. Maybe if the demand increases, though hopefully someone will get to the bottom of the cause of why Google uses DMOZ snippets and make it unnecessary.

Thanks (I think). It would have to be about Adult and for personal reasons I won't edit there. And no, I don't want to reopen a debate that seems to have gone on for long enough.

 

I think a more suitable handle should be jimlier instead of jimnoble. URL have provided many times before and each time you disappear from the thread.

To prove that you lie, here is a link to my previous posting which was actually for you, dated July 9th 2005:

"Jimnoble

Since you are one of those who defends the quality of DMOZ and it's editors, let see what you define as a quality that all people on Internet should be thankful to DMOZ for it. I just visited one of the sites mentioned in minstrel list pornzite with 126 links and let's see what turns a DMOZ editor that deserves 126 listing. This is a partial list of the links in their entry page:

"F*sting king"
"object Freaks"
"Shocking BDSM"
"P*e lover"
"Closeup P*e"
"Drinking Pi*s"
"Tortured Girl"

I am amazed of the level of quality that is provided, we should really thank you and the rest of DMOZ meta editors for this level of quality.

I also undertstand now, why most people can not become editors since you must have a real twisted mind to appreciate such quality of links, after all most of us just like normal sex.

There is also new change in 2257 regulation from 23rd of June that any site that doesn't have 2257 records regarding the age of models is considered child porn and illegal. I looked at couple of mentioned site and none of these sites had the 2257 declartion on the site, so they are breaking the US law. Therefore DMOZ directory is providing links to illegal, child porn sites.

USC 18 &2257"

Now you have the link and the official federal law text in USA where AOL is located that makes it illegal, what are you going to do about it?
Do something about it and I will provide you with list of 100s or 1000s other illegal sites owned by DMOZ editors.

 

gworld, the problem with your complaint is that you refuse to back it up with facts. The "links" you provide in your previous post are not links. They are phrases, but they don't actually link to anything.

Like others, I've corresponded with you requesting the proof of abuse you say you have, but you refuse to share the information. I still have copies of our correspondence; you didn't give me a single URL and you wouldn't tell me which editor/s you were accusing of abuse. Personally, I don't believe you have the URLs but if you do, please send them to me, or jimnoble, or alucard, or brizzie. None of us have turned and run when provided proof, but you wouldn't know that because you've done nothing more than talk.

You love to complain but you don't have the facts to back it up. That's no ones fault but your own.

Don't you think it's about time to show the proof or shut up?

 

It seems that to lie just comes naturally to DMOZ editors. The link to the site is in my previous posting.

"I just visited one of the sites mentioned in minstrel list pornzite with 126 links and let's see what turns a DMOZ editor that deserves 126 listing."

If you don't know how to figure that out, just add .com to the end of the name and you will have the URL.

Those are not phrases but links from the first page of pornzite.com, I just didn't want to put the words in my post and I thought everybody is intelligent enough to know what the words are even with *.

I make it even easier, here is the link to minstrel post with number of listings in DMOZ.

DMOZ porn sites list by minstrel

 

I have not lied to you or anyone else. The only link in your previous posting is a link to a post in another thread. You don't provide links in that post either. You also refused to provide specific url's or editors in your private correspondence with me.

No, those are phrases. You expect us to guess that we should correct your words and add ".com". Why would you assume everyone will just guess that you mean for us to add .com (not .net or any of the other possibilities) ...oh, and of course we must correctly guess that after we fill in the missing letters. Gee, wonder why it didn't look like a link to me?

Where are the editor connections that you claim exist? Which editors? gworld please provide specifics if you want/expect me to spend any amount of time looking at your allegations of abuse in an Adult category. I don't do Adult, but I will look at specific allegations of abuse in Adult. I will not waste hours and hours in the Adult directory trying to figure out your "clues" and "cryptic messages". If you have specific evidence of abuse you can choose to share it or you can continue playing games. Your choice, but at this point you have no credibility with me. If you have proof, show it.

ADDED: Just a reminder, the guidelines for the Adult directory are not the same as for the Main ODP directory.
FAQ - Dmoz/Adult
ODP Adult Guidelines

 

Well now you have the link, HINT: It is the word which is in RED and BIGGER SIZE in my previous post, it is pornzite.com.

You don't even need to concern yourself with editor's connection. This is direct from DMOZ TOS (Term Of Service):

"Illegal Sites
Sites with unlawful content should not be listed in the directory, particularly those intent and substantially focused on making available and distributing illegal materials. Examples of content that is illegal in most jurisdictions include child pornography; material that infringes on intellectual property rights; material that advocates, solicits or abets illegal activity (such as fraud or violence) in specific instances; and material that is libelous. Factual and how-to information is generally NOT abetting illegal conduct unless its intent is to facilitate the immediate commission of a crime in a specific situation. "

Since these sites don't have 2257 declaration, it makes it ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO US FEDERAL LAWS, so those sites should be removed. When do you think you can remove these illegal sites that are breaking DMOZ TOS?

 

So, now you say I don't need to concern myself with editor's connection with the sites that you aren't providing specific URLs for. Sorry, but I'm not playing that game. You made allegations of editor abuse. Which editors?

I stand by this. There are over 50,000 listings in Adult. Without specifics, I'll choose to spend my editing time reviewing sites for the main ODP directory and steer clear of Adult. Feel free to provide specifics if you have them, otherwise you're just wasting time.

 

With all due respect, Annie, editor abuse or not, he's given you a specific URL with pointers to what he believes contravenes the law about pages on that site - as an editor, I would presume you should be able to verify if what he says is true. If it is true, then presumably it shouldn't be there, adult section or not. No?

 

I took the liberty of looking the owner of that site up - the site is registered in Bergen, Norway - from what I understand based on the research I just did - USC 2557 only applies to sites in the United States. So how is this an illegal site in reference to United States Code? Is the Attorney General planning to make visits to countries where (s)he has no authority? I seriously doubt it.

As much as I dislike the Adult section - those type of sites have their place on the internet - just the Adult bookstores downtown has their place.

I'm not an attorney - nor am I answering on behalf of the ODP.