Remove Listing from DMOZ

Alucard, just a gentle reminder: This is DigitalPoint, not the Resource Zone. This isn't a DMOZ-owned forum or even a DMOZ-owned thread. Every thread here eventually gets hijacked.

 

Ah right, sorry. Hijack-away, folks

I wasn't trying to own it, just trying to make sure that the issue brought up got discussed, because I think it was a valid issue. The trouble is that the original point is getting lost in an old argument, which had its own thread.

 

I don't believe in miracles and that is the reason I don't think DMOZ is fixable. To try to fix DMOZ is the same idea as trying to make MAFIA a non-profit charity organization.

If you can change DMOZ that submission and election of editors is open and clear process, to have a system for the submission with reasonable time for admission or rejection, and there is official open database for rejections and the reason behind it with regulated appeal system for such rejections; then I have nothing against it and will support the idea.

But we both know that corruption is too strong for any of this to happen, don't we?

 

I think I was one of the few who gave practical advice on how to get deleted from DMOZ and not be bullied by editors attitude that we can do what ever we like.

Here is my previous post.

 

Yes, you gave some advice which could work. Unfortunately you appear to regularly add jabs and digs which just get people upset. I have seen you do this in multiple threads on this forum (and not just ODP threads) - it is your personal style, I know, but it usually gets the result you complain about.

If you want a discussion about a topic, then leave out the blanket statements and "humourous" digs, and stick to the topic.

As for being the victim of editor bullying, as far as removing listed sites, etc., while the attitude towards posters on the Resource Zone often leaves a lot to be desired (on both sides), when it comes to what is actually done in the ODP you are right - the editors (collectively) can do anything they like, and they govern each other. There is a Vision for the ODP and what it tries to be, and editors do their best, collectively, to live up to that vision. What is NOT part of the vision is being responsible to webmasters for the content of the directory. Never has been. If that turns out to be not useful, then people will stop using the data.

The ODP is not what you (or other webmasters) want it to be. It's not part of the mandate to be that, and there is no emphasis to change this.

Is this arrogant? Someone with a vision is often considered arrogant by those that do not share in the vision. So from your perspective yes, it is highly arrogant.

 

I have heard corruption be called by many names but by calling it a vision, don't you think that you are taking it a bit too far?

 

Editors are not elected and can't be - who by? Webmasters? Editors are selected on their ability to edit, honesty and integrity. Hey sometimes someone dishonest slips through. But not as many as if every spammer was given the ability and information to lie their way in.

Reasonable times for admission or rejection assumes we are a listing service. Blah blah blah. But on average I believe it is about 3 - 6 months though the variation for a variety of reasons can be days to years. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Force editors to adopt set review time targets and they will all walk, end of DMOZ. So you would support something that didn't exist.

Rejection information - no way. That would tell every spammer, and a vast majority of submissions are spam, what to do to avoid their site being identified as spam.

At the end of the day gworld you will believe what you believe and to you that is right. To editors you couldn't be more wrong. And as I said before rants with unsubstantiated allegations that lack credibility tend to undermine any useful points you might have. Which is a shame.

 

What a bunch of BS. How do you know about some one honesty and integrity by their application? The only way to keep a system honest is by having clear procedures for every step of process that DMOZ refuses to implement.

If the history and people's opinion of DMOZ is anything to judge on, honesty and integrity is exactly what is missing in DMOZ.

 

I rest my case, sheesh!

GWorld, when you are ready to have a discussion without taking pot-shots I will reply further to what you write. If you want your ideas to be treated with respect, bring them up in a respectful way.

 

I just spent a lousy 11 hours pouring over Adult and hating every second of it only to come back here and read that gworld says he doesn't have time to click on the links he uses to back his claims? That's lame.

I found nothing to make me think the editor that's left has done anything wrong. Of course if gworld would have had the time to click on the links he relied on to form his "opinion" he would have known his arguement was unfounded before bulling me into staying up all night to investigate it. Had he admited he didn't even bother to look at his own evidence before I started, I wouldn't have wasted my time.

gworld, you are lame, you are a liar, you are mean, you like to argue, you wouldn't know logic if it bit you, and you probably kick puppies for fun. I'll never take you seriously again. You are a joke.

Alucard is nicer than me, even if you try to act reasonable I will not respond to you.

 

I see that you argue like a true DMOZ editor, if logic fails you then start name calling. Too bad this is not resourceless zone, otherwise you could ban me.

1- I supplied you with the name of editor.

2- I supplied 4 links to editor owned web site which are nothing but 1 page web site for advertising editors services.

3- I supplied you with DMOZ listing that is against US federal law and breaks DMOZ own TOS rule.

From all the above you draw a conclusion that everything is OK and I am liar.

Well, you are a DMOZ editor and I think that is the worst thing I can call you.

 

Yikes!

Have you been able to verify this, Annie?

 

No, but I'm tired and cranky from playing the troll's game and I have a feeling it's true... yes I do, I just know it. That qualifies as proof here, right?

Thanks for your offer of help minstrel, you are a gentleman.

 

Bradley is another DMOZ editor who posted in this same thread:

Annie, who is the liar? Enough said.

 

ack!!! I heard a yelp... did the troll just kick another puppy??

 

Now THAT is comedy!

I'm pretty sure gworld doesn't really kick puppies, though... well, maybe DMOZ puppies but not regular puppies

 

I think you suffer from some kind of identity disorder, puppies are nice, useful creatures while DMOZ editors ARE NOT.

Since you like minstrel, may be you can email him to help you with this problem.

 

Poor Bradley - being used by a troll (aka puppy kicker) and having his quote taken out of context to be used to call another person (who voluntarily gave up hours of her time to research a potential abuse case) a liar . Let's see what that whole paragraph said:

The bold part was left out - looks like he went on to explain why he thought it probably wasn't abuse even though it looked like it.

 

He is clear that he thinks that it looks like abuse, the rest is just to protect his ass from DMOZ.
While Annie make claims about her research, she never mentioned why there was no abuse or why 1 page web site should be listed 4 times in DMOZ.

Should we believe the claim of "honesty", just because she said so?
Accepting a DMOZ editor word, give me a break.

By the way, do you think you are a puppy too? After reading that so many of you are under aged teenagers, it seems a common problem that DMOZ editors think of themselves as puppies.



Latest DMOZ editors meeting

 

gworld, I can speak for myself, thanks.

first of all Minstrel, that was not a smear attempt. I don't know whether you read the rest of my post but had you done so, you may have noticed this was part of a broader point echoed by every other editor here, that frankly we see Adult as a bit of a badlands (mainly because of the content) that we tend to stay clear of when possible, whereas he is using it to point out the shaky legality of sites listed in it or the fact that some editors in there may not be entirely pure... not a Herculean effort of intellect by any means!

I was merely suggesting we'd be much more responsive to proof of 'widespread' corruption if he could provide us with evidence of cases that came from, uh, well, a 'wide' spread of categories in DMOZ...

back to my point - if I may sum up my own position myself, was that it appeared to deserve further investigation because there are signs of what may be malpractice here, but that I can also think of several reasons why appearances could well be deceiving, and hence that gworld ought best to hold his tongue if he cannot use it to benefit his accusation.

To instead slag off compostannie, who bless her has been trawling through smut for several hours looking into this, and state that she's turning her back on this, is unbelievable!