Well he should be scared into silence. The thread he posted has nothing to do with exposing any corruption, and he would not be protected by any whistleblower arrangement. On the contrary, he is exposing a thread that is supposed to be kept private and by posting it he is violating connfidentiality agreeements to which he agreed. Therfore it would seem AOL could go after him. And now that I think of it, he's exposing a thread in which I posted, and that possibly leaves him open to having a lawsuit against him from me personally, since I could argue that my privacy and expectations of confidentialty have been violated.
I don't think that AOL would like that with so much investigation they are involved in both from Justice department and SEC. Add the stink of corruption in DMOZ and some previous cases like DMOZ giving access to porn material to under aged editor and it can become a public relation nightmare. I don't think that you can have any expectation of privacy either since 1- He has not used your real name 2- He was an editor and part the of discussion and therefore has the right to quote the material which he is a party to. If against all odds, AOL decide to do something stupid and go after him, I am sure thousands of webmasters on the Internet will happily help with his defense fund.
You know what... Screw DMOZ! I don't see what the bid deal is with this stupid directory... Really guys if you balance out the waiting time and all the other BS with what you get from it. Is it really worth it? .... Waiting a year not to mention years seems ridacalous, one stupid link doesn't make or break your site... The DMOZ rehabilation plan... -Submit to all these directories... -And go on with your life... Time: 4-6 hours Links: with 50% placement 180+ links Screw those power hungry bastards....Boycott DMOZ
I like the formatting effort that went into that post, emil2k. Also, thank you for hijacking this thread.
Personally I never ever thought it was. I used to submit and forget, I still have sites I've submitted and that have not been listed and maybe I check every couple of months to see if they got accepted. (Although I have the sense not to wait for anything) But maybe I'm missing something consdering the amount of energy people spend in posting in here. Since you hijacked this thread with such a pretty post, it must be very important to you.
Actually on the contrary I have never even attempted to submit sites to DMOZ...as I was a DP addict before I was technically a webmaster I just got a very bad impression of DMOZ being extremely overated so I never bothered to submit... PS: This was my 500th post...but i dont want to hijack so...woohoo
For those who don't want to read this thread. here's the summary... Spendlessly: I used to be a DMOZ editor and there REALLY IS CORRUPTION DP Members: bullshit you have like no posts Spendlessly: ---Shows ScreenShot Proof He was AND STILL IS-- ODP Editors: something about ques.... (avoiding the subject) Spendlessly: --- Shows Screenshot proof that ODP Knows there is corruption ODP Editor: Well no one said there is "no" corruption... Spendlessly: --More Screenshots-- ODP Editor: Stop that... you signed an agreement!! Next time someone says there is no corruption at DMOZ point them to this thread and save a argument. Then get on with your lives
The issue is NOT what you or macdesign wants to call it - the issue is (1) that it is a reasonable thing to call it and many editors call it just that, even speaking of "going to the end of the queue if you resubmit" on several forums; and (2) that calling it a queue doesn't make Spendlessly a fake editor, as macdesign tried so pathetically to claim.
So now that we all agree there IS corruption.. can we move on and maybe get an admission that that in turn is part of the delay problems with DMOZ and that some webmasters who "bitch" abotu corruption might have valid points and shouldn't be chastized for it???
That is exactly the type of corrupt mentality that fires whistle-blowers in the public service for reporting criminal acts they witness among their peers or supervisors or by politicians. Edit: posted before I saw gworld's post and the subsequent replies, none of which changes the validity of my statement.
If they're like the sites in your signature, thank you very much. We appreciate your compliance with our guidelines. Congratulations on #500
Pardon me but that's f#$%ing ridiculous. He didn't prove there is coruption, just that there are corrupt editors??? Are you high? Puff Puff give. EDIT: New DMOZ Slogan: There is no corruption, Only Corrupt Editors!!
I can understand why YOU would say that, macdesign. Hell, if Spendlessly keeps revealing DMOZ inside information, you won't be able to sell it to people any more -- he must be cutting into your profits.
being corrupts is one thing, admitting in (dmoz-) forums the only reason you joined is to add your own sites is really stupid. I got a friend that did exactly the same: no editors for this cat (nor for higher levels). He applied, got accepted, removed all entries, added his own 3, and never logged on again. And 'his' category is still as it was the way he left it. Anyways, I'd like to thank Spendlessly for posting all this here, it's good to know what's going on at DMOZ and that they (appear to) take things seriously
I don't really care if DMOZ editors are corrupt myself. I think DMOZ should go away personally.. But since that is not happening tomorrow.. I just want to know what the supposed 80,000 editors are doing. I can think of a whole slew of categories that have no editors and haven't been updated in ridiculously long periods of time. So besides chit-chatting ont he DMOZ internal forums about how uncorrupt you all are, what do you guys do? As an observer from way out side the entire process seems ridiculously inefficient.
I know this has been posted way too many times already but you're asking again so please excuse the repetition. Of the 70,708 editors who have contributed to the project over the years only approximately 10,000 are currently editors. Some are very active, some do a minimal amount of editing. If you do the math, this over estimation of active editors creates expectations that each of us to do the work of 7 editors. Sorry, but we can't.