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.

Remove Listing from DMOZ

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by webhamster, Nov 5, 2005.

  1. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #121
    I think this is exactly the problem. Excuse after excuse instead of admitting that they can not do anything about corruption.

    To take away their excuses here is just couple of links that I checked from that page:
    Search: asian-sweethearts.com

    Open Directory Categories (1-4 of 4)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Fetishes: Clothing: Uniforms: Military: Free (1 match)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Asian: Softcore: Free: B (1)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Asian: Softcore: Free: H (1)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Asian: Softcore: Free: S (1)

    Search: cheap-phone-sex.net
    Open Directory Categories (1-4 of 4)
    Adult: Business: Phone Sex: Services (1 match)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Porn Stars: M (1)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Porn Stars: D: Diaz, Marisa (1)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Softcore: Free: F (1)

    Search: sensual-expressions.com
    Open Directory Categories (1-1 of 1)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Fetishes: Pregnant and Lactating: Free: P (1 match)

    All the above sites are owned by "SE COMMUNICATION LLC", these are 1 page web sites with no content, except telephone number for the service or few links to affiliates.

    Who is SE COMMUNICATION LLC? search for phonemistress in Google, it shows profile for phonemistress here:

    http://www.searchenginematrix.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile;u=00000861

    What is the home page for this profile? surprise, surprise, the home page is
    sensual-expressions.com owned by "SE COMMUNICATIONS LLC", you will also notice that phone mistress and SE communications LLC both have post box address in Washington, DC. :rolleyes:

    Annie;

    Is this enough or next you will demand that I deliever a signed, sworn confession from editors? ;)
     
    gworld, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  2. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #122
    I'm not demanding he do my work for me. The point is, I have no duty to work in the Adult category, but some of you think I do. If gworld isn't willing to volunteer do it, what right does he have to insist that I do it? The Adult directory; it's considered separate from the main ODP directory and I don't touch it.

    However, I volunteered to look at the evidence if gworld provided it; after all he did say he had editor names and the urls that they're connected with. I just don't see the point in him making me look at material I'm uncomfortable with to duplicate the research gworld says he's already done.

    Wouldn't that be a waste of time?


    EDIT: Writing my post as gworld was writing his. I am so very tired, can we continue this tomorrow please?
    -- No excuse, I simply don't want to do porn. Porn isn't my job anymore than it's yours! This is why I'm asking for help.

    btw, a signed confession would simplify things, please be a dear and deliver it to me at my top sekrit address :D
     
    compostannie, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  3. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #123
    Well now I have done it and provided you with links and the information. By the way, I didn't keep any of this information from before and everything that I have posted in this thread, I found out from Google and DMOZ search in 10 minutes. Don't you think it is strange that I can find this information in 10 minutes while DMOZ supposedly hasn't been able to find out about this in at least 3 years? :rolleyes:

    Either, I must be some kind of super genius (I don't think so) or DMOZ editors are not interested in stopping the corruption, don't you think so? ;)
     
    gworld, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  4. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #124
    Ok, I looked into the allegations on this site. Here are the results:
    -> 5 of the 6 named editors are no longer editors.
    -> Of the list of sites alleged to be owned by phonemistress, only 3 are listed in the ODP.
    Too bad no one had the ambition to click on the links before making accusations.

    I agree that you are not a super genius, but you are wrong about DMOZ editors not being interested in stopping corruption.

    That was 2003 and the site is totally outdated, the information is proven incorrect, it's not relevant. Click on the links and check for yourself if you don't believe me. I've wasted enough time on that issue, find something current and we'll talk.

    yawn, I'm bored.
     
    compostannie, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  5. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #125
    :confused: I just listed 3 sites in my previous post that are owned by her, you mean she has no other sites except those 3 that listed in my posting? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #126
    Just to make sure that everybody understands that your posting is not true:
    Here is the link to web site #4 (3 from previous posting +1 in this posting =4)

    Search: sweetblackpus*y.com (if you can't guess what * stands for, replace it with s)

    Open Directory Categories (1-3 of 3)
    Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Ebony: Butts: Free (1 match)

    Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Latinas: Free: H (1)

    Adult: Image Galleries: Ethnic: Ebony: Softcore: Free: D (1)

    Who owns that site? You guessed it: SE Communications LLC

    Too bad, you don't have the ambition or the power to fight the corruption in DMOZ.

    I agree, yawn, I'm bored to prove the corruption time after time when I know nothing is going to happen. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  7. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #127
    Heh, so my posting is not true because you say there's 4 rather than the 3 I saw? First, I didn't disclose the URL's that I saw, so how do you know which one I missed? You originally said there were 46 and now you say there's 4... do the math... No matter how many fingers and toes you use, I still came closer. And that's assuming you are correct about the 4. (I'm taking your word for it.)

    Hey gworld, I said I saw see 3, not 4 but it's after 7:00 am and I've been awake all night trying to take you as seriously as I can. So far, I haven't even come close to finding the elusive 46 that you know about but won't tell. I'm tired and I have a headache from lack of sleep, but my dedication and ambition is keeping me awake. :mad: I always say I don't have power, no editor has power. But ambition and dedication? You owe me an apology for that accusation. Really.

    gworld, you only have to help me prove it once. Still yawning, but I've been working in the Adult cesspool for the last 3 hours...not happy about that. Not one bit! :mad: You can't possibly be "bored to prove the corruption time after time" because you haven't even done it once yet. There is a big difference between accusations and proof. I'm bored with your accusations. Show me your proof.

    To really check for abuse takes more than vague rants (which is what that web page was.) It takes many, many hours of tedious checking and searching... days, perhaps weeks. I'm doing it and I'm disgusted by the topic. We need hard evidence, not merely suspicion, and I'm looking for it. The very least you can do is avoid piling your abuse on me as I enter the sewer for you.

    It would be even nicer if you would help... what are all those other URL's you claim this editor has listed? You said you have lists; again, I ask that you share the information with me. Don't just tell me to search or give clues; that doesn't help one bit. Telling me to search is a no brainer... of course I'll search. The question is what do YOU know? You claimed you had facts, where are they? Send them to me privately.

    Also, I have a question for you gworld. Since there is theoretically a possibility of abuse in any area of the ODP why do you feel Adult is more important than any other category? Do you have a special interest in that area? Just wondering.

    One more thing... I'm doing this in answer to the demands of digital point members. It would be nice if you people gave me positive rep rather than negative because I sure don't feel any personal motivation to dig into Adult. I'm working on your complaints, if you want the truth, then please show some appreciation to help me keep going on this icky task rather than piling on your negative rep and accusatory comments.
     
    compostannie, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  8. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #128
    Corruption - it appears that several editors are no longer editors and this goes back for quite a time - I don't have access as to why they are ex-editors and it is my understanding that those who might have access are prohibited from commenting.

    Illegal sites. A site that is legal where it is hosted is... legal. If it breaches US law then presumably it would be illegal to host the site in the US. But the site is not illegal in the US because it is not in the US. Sounds reasonable to me for the US to make laws relating to sites in its jurisdiction. But is a link to a site that would be illegal if hosted in the US itself illegal, assuming it is legal in the country it is hosted in? And what is a link? Is it something clickable, or something you can cut and paste, or any other information so that a person can open the site? I don't know where this server is but if it is in the US then there is a lot of potential law breaking going on here. Since the DMOZ guidelines do not explicitely state a site must be legal under Californian law to be listed the implication is that we are talking about sites being legal where they are physically hosted. Not a legal opinion, just thinking it through logically. If a US server could not contain links to sites that if hosted in the US would be illegal then wouldn't Google have been taken down, and every other search engine?

    And lets say there is a California legal requirement for real estate agents to put their licence details on any website (don't know if that is so or not but there may be other similar legal requirements) but agents in London, England do not have to be licenced so cannot do so. Using the same principle DMOZ would not be able to list real estate agents that did not comply with Californian law on displaying licence details. Which would be a nonsense.

    If DMOZ is listing sites hosted in the US that breach US law then I think that is clearly wrong and should be corrected. Otherwise I can't see the case myself at all. But anyone is welcome to write to AOL and complain about DMOZ, and presumably to every other directory and search engine and forum come to that that are based in the US and which display a link to a site that would not be legal if situated in the US. In fact if anyone feels that strongly should they not be alerting the authorities about illegal activity? If the legal authorities, or AOL's lawyers tell us to remove the links (and they must know of them) then we will remove them immediately. But I would think that URLs for US sites breaking US laws would not require such an order - it would be a routine quality control matter. But we have to know the URL and where listed because like virtually all other editors I won't go into Adult on a fishing expedition.
     
    brizzie, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  9. bradley

    bradley Peon

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #129
    how polite of you to troll like that! thank you for your kindnes and consideration, it's good to see you free of all hypocrisy!

    presumably you therefore think Americans shouldn't be complaining about 9-11 then? It was just wrong, no matter what the other side is doing (camp x-ray, abu ghraib, etc). Justifying terrorist/shock and awe/bullying tactics on the basis that the people it's directed at aren't always angel-pure either (bullying and rudeness is certainly not the norm amongst DMOZ editors, for that matter, whilst the same can't be said of those critical of DMOZ) is moral relativism - it's just morally bankrupt.
     
    bradley, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  10. bradley

    bradley Peon

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #130
    gworld, your investigation certainly seems to have brought up websites owned by that editor - check the first site, asian-sweethearts.com - the news on the frontpage is posted by phonemistress herself (scroll down in the news box) (I haven't checked the other sites, the fewer fetish sites I have to view, the better)

    Though it's not uncommon for editors to own sites in DMOZ, to have one as basic as the one I mentioned earlier - which has a grand total of TWO pages (!) - linked to four times, and not once in what I would consider an appropriate category (for example, the site has no image galleries, at least none that I can spot). This certainly suggests abuse to me, though bear in mind that's my own opinion based on a very limited 'investigation' - for example, at the time of listing the sites may well have had image galleries, and she may have declared the site as her own, for DMOZ to see. Remember that it's not uncommon for editors to have a site that belongs to them listed, as long as it's declared on the list of affiliations. I'm also not familiar with Adult-specific guidelines, so it's *possible* what looks dodgy from a normal editor's perspective, may not be at all.

    The Adult section, as you've no doubt seen from compostannie and brizzle amongst others, is considred to be a pretty shady place in many regards by a fair few editors of 'normal' categories, and tends to be avoided (understandibly) by many - this probably means scams tend to go unnoticed for longer - again, I hope you can show some understanding here.

    Depending on how frequently an editor visits a forum such as DP, you can expect to see some guy/gal vent that 'there is widespread corruption at DMOZ' (and often worse, for example asserting that 'we're all in it for the money' or we all have 'vested interests' and so on...) - the Adult section isn't what immeditaely springs to mind when we decide to go and look into those claims. Frankly, i'm not that interested when i hear that those sections are corrupt, and unless you run porn sites yourself, I'm sort of surprised you do too?

    I'd much rather the people flinging these wild accusations about 'widespread' corruption actually demonstrated proof for those accusations that deals with 'normal' categories - those would be much more relevant IMHO, and what's more, would be far more pleasant to look into
     
    bradley, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  11. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #131
    That's a less-than-subtle smear attempt, bradley.

    Try to imagine that you're either a webmaster trying to make a living and you believe, rightly or wrongly, that having a DMOZ listing might have a bearing on your bottom line. You can't seem to get your site listed and, because it's a DMOZ policy, can't even find out why not. Then you see a list like the one at http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html and, among others, notice that one way to get listed multiple times seems to be to create a sleazy porn site. Don't you think that just MIGHT cause you to wonder what the heck is going on at DMOZ?
     
    minstrel, Nov 14, 2005 IP
    gworld likes this.
  12. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #132
    If you have found any other 3 than those I listed in my post, it would have made the total 6, so I assumed when you said she owned only 3 that you were talking about the same 3, so I posted the 4th to show that you were wrong. Your logic is interesting, first there was nothing, after showing 4 example then it is too little. :rolleyes:
    I didn't have time to click on every link in adult section but I am sure I can find much more if I spend the time. Do you want the truth? Give me access to DMOZ database, I run a script to find all the IP for each listing and then compare the owners of listings with same IP. You can do it too, if you really like to find out.

    I didn't give you any red rep but don't worry about it. DMOZ editors here always give red reps to anybody who disagree with DMOZ. I have got 3 so far for this thread. :p

    The domain owner has put an address in Norway but the site is hosted in FLORIDA. It makes it illegal even according to your definition but I am sure you will find another excuse. It has also no text in Norwegian (The language spoken in Norway) or link to any site in Norway. Even a blind can see that the whole Norway business is just a bunch of BS and the site is an American site. ;)

    To those who try to make not too subtle hints about why I am interested in adult section, what are you trying to say? That I am a pervert, give it a rest. I know about the corruption in that section because of previous discussion with another corrupt editor but if it makes you feel better, I can accept everything that you try to hint at like; I am interested in sex, porn, orgy, threesome, foursome,......but what does my sexual liking or orientation got to do with DMOZ corruption and abuse? :cool:
     
    gworld, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  13. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #133
    From a webmaster angle I don't disagree that is a possibility. From a non-Adult branch editor angle a large number of us wish it never existed and will not set foot there unless absolutely necessary. And remember that a large number of editors are aged 13 - 17 too. I understand that the current position of Adult - it exists but is distinct and not shown on the DMOZ front page (you have to know it is there) - was a compromise between those who didn't want it at all and those who wanted it completely integrated (God forbid).

    I am sure its status will come up again internally at some point in the future but it tends to get very low attention internally because (a) a large proportion of editors stay clear, voluntarily or because of their age, and (b) internal discussion of Adult matters is in a separate forum category that a large proportion of editors stay clear of. I personally think there would be strong editor support for at least putting some distance between the main DMOZ directory and the Adult branch, perhaps even abandoning it altogether, but it still has to get past the Admins and in this case certainly past Netscape/AOL Time Warner too.

    I think what editors don't like is that the problems and nature of the Adult branch are assumed to apply across the board, that all editors support its existence and will defend it. I don't, I won't, I have my own views on what to do with it but I'll reserve those for an internal debate. But ranting at us and automatically tarring us all with the problems and issues surrounding Adult does not actually help the case of those internally who would like reform. Because the rants have acquired the status of hysterical and irrational nonsense even though there may be valid points underlying them. "All editors are members of a corruption ring because there are multiple listings by webmaster editors in Adult and those webmaster editors control DMOZ". What crap. Adult has relatively few editors, makes up only 1% of all listings (what is the % of Google searches looking for porn?), only one of the alleged ring of corruption is still an editor so previous reports have been acted on, and Adult has odd but approved rules that allow multiple listings of the same site. So straight away the whole thing is simply not credible and is dismissed. Which is a pity because some sound, rational, calm analysis of the situation would probably be greatly welcomed.

    Is there still a problem with corrupt editors still editing - I honestly don't know. But provide real URLs that contravene the Adult guidelines specifically and are not connected with what appears to me to be a red herring about legality and explain calmly and rationally why abuse is suspected - not a stream of vitriol randomly splattered at all editors and containing insults and accusations. And provide them either via Resource Zone or the Abuse Report link with as much objective evidence as possible. Some has emerged here and I am sure it will be investigated. To tell if your suspect editor is still around check their profile and if there is no feedback link then they have left the building, either having given up or because they were abusive and have been removed. Abuse ceases to be an issue and it moves into the realms of quality control.

    Is there a problem still with quality control? A legacy of previous times. Again I don't know because I don't understand the Adult listing rationale and policies. But a report of such issues with categories, URLs, and a calm objective reference to a relevant section of the Adult guidelines will usually get someone to look. But it will take longer probably because there are fewer willing to go look and who know and understand the rules there.

    Is there an ethical and moral issue with DMOZ having an Adult section? A lot of us think so but it should be separated from abuse and quality control. And again calm and rational analysis and arguments are far more likely to win the case for further change. It is a different argument.

    Sorry but the type of rants seen here, which get editors on the defensive about something they don't want to defend, are not the way to resolve the situation and no-one leaves satisfied.
     
    brizzie, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  14. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #134
    This isn't a joke? A "large number of editors are aged 13 - 17"??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
     
    minstrel, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  15. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #135
    Many Europeans use servers in the US, and from what I can see (which is slightly more than you) the owner would be more likely to be Scandinavian than American but who knows. I haven't defined anything, I just followed a logic process with a legal disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer. 99.9% of the time editors will not check the location of a server because even webmasters are often not aware where their site's server is. Besides at the time it was listed it may be being delivered from a server in India for all I or you know - and nothing stops American companies using servers in Norway - what is the position there? I don't know, it sounds like a very complex matter to me, and one for the lawyers. Making the site in English only only proves it is intended for the English speaking world, not that it is not Norweigan owned and operated. If you are going to make a valid point for goodness sakes don't wrap it up in a bundle of insinuation and insults and include guesses with nothing to back it up - if you know an American is behind the site and have firm evidence of that then fine, otherwise it is just speculation and useless as evidence. The point underlying what you just said is worth referring. And at the same time I hope you will be reporting the situation to the hosts, without putting their backs up please, and if necessary to the relevant authorities. The site disappearing is the quickest way to get it off of DMOZ, and the quicker the better if it really is breaking the law anywhere, lawyers tend to take their time.
     
    brizzie, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  16. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #136
    No joke. My niece was an editor at 13. Under my supervision at all times, as any child should be when using the Internet. Some of our best and most experienced editors are or have been under 18. They are forbidden to enter the Adult section of the directory under 18 (or higher if that applies where they live).
     
    brizzie, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  17. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #137
    An 18 year old I can see maybe, at least in some cases. A 13 year old? And "a large number of editors" in that age range?

    That doesn't increase my confidence at all in the maturity of DMOZ editors, to be honest, or in the utility of the directory. Does Google realize that it's "authority site" is staffed by teenagers? :eek:
     
    minstrel, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  18. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #138
    I'm sure Google is aware. Netscape / AOL Time Warner know - it is their policy to have no age barriers up or down and their staff have promoted several youngsters to senior editing ranks. Frankly some of the younger ones are more mature than the older ones. It does make you think when you first find out but in all honesty you cannot tell the difference between a teenager's work and a senior's. The hurdles editors must jump to start and expand editing will weed out the immature regardless of age.
     
    brizzie, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  19. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #139
    The application process does not include any questions about sex, ethnicity, sexual preference, marital status, religion, or age. The metas are instructed to make decisions based on quality of the application. Even once an editor is accepted, their feedback (and future) is based on their edits.

    IMO, that is how it should be.
     
    Alucard, Nov 14, 2005 IP
  20. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #140
    I think it has been demonstrated here that most of the editors posting to this forum have little or no interest in the Adult section of the directory. Therefore, I think that demands that they do something, and accusations of "running away" when they don't, are unreasonable.

    If you wish to have an Adult editor participate in this discussion, how about you invite someone? You can send Adult editors feedback from the ODP categories - like them to this and the other threads on this subject. You never know, you might actually be able to get into a discussion with someone who has spent some time trying to understand all the legal ramifications on this, and has taken part in making editorial decisions.

    So, since the ODP Adult section is a separate animal, requiring different input, could I politely ask that we get this discusison back on-topic?

    I think that most of the posters here who are ODP editors would like to hear about proven cases of corruption and will do what they can to put some corrective action in place. It is something that concerns us greatly, in spite of what the pot-shotters would like to make out.

    I have investigated several myself, as much as I could, and have passed others onto the "higher-ups" - all have been investigated, and, if that editor is still around, have found to not meet the standards of proof.

    Gworld, I know you have an axe to grind - you have said in previous posts on this forum that your goal isn't to make the ODP a better place, but to bring it down (and if you don't recall that I will go searching for the thread reference). The fact that you have hijacked this thread with your (old) personal agenda kind of shows this. If you still have an issue then you might want to bring back that old thread so the discussion can be continued by those that still wish to expend their energy addressing your concerns.

    Thanks.
     
    Alucard, Nov 14, 2005 IP