Right, there is progress being made, but it's all slow. The red tape is what allows the corrupt editors to have plenty of opportunity as well. Like I've said: shine some light, let some air in and let's see what's really going on heh
OK this isn't funny anymore. I'm really starting to think you are retarded.. Look at page 12. Not a single ODP editor as replied directly or inderectly to those statements. (I got some nice comments in rep though, so some have a sense of humor) Nice try, but you're not getting off that easy. Allow me to quote.. Discuss....
Read the rest of the statement I wrote - let me put it right here so you don't have to trouble yourself to find it again. What'shisface came on here saying or did you neglect to read those statements? He said the directory is corrupt - I said it's not. He said that the people in power are the corrupt ones - but he hasn't given any proof of that at all. Nor has he made an abuse report - if he felt that strongly about it and had one tiny bit of proof, he would have. I never said "he didn't prove there isn't corruption" - I'll repeat again what I said - he didn't prove DMOZ is corrupt.
you are misleading by stating 1 in 1.000s. It is a much higher rate than that at DMOZ. And the fact that there are 1,000s of porn pages from the same editor owned sites listed, doesn't help clean up the reputation. Whether you like it or not, you are an enabler here to those people. So please stop lying and helping put up a front for them. you're a grandma, right? what impression do you think your grandkids would get from you voluteering to indirectly represent those people and helping them benefit financially from your work?
imocr Since you stated that you are a grandmother, may I ask how old are you? There is a strong possibility that your mind is failing and you should go for a check up as soon as possible when you come with a statement that "DMOZ is not corrupt, only corrupt editors" as an explanation of the situation in DMOZ and it sounds logical to you.
I am sure that everyone in this thread would agree not every editor at DMOZ is corrupt. However corruption breeds corruption. Enviroment plays a very important part in our development as humans. Whether this be on the job or socially. As it has been stated here by a few editors of DMOZ, they do believe that there is some form of corrution within DMOZ. Corruption is like a virus as it incubates it will grow. Threads such as this one serves a couple of effects. First it exposes the negative aspects and reinforces the beliefs of the DMOZ directory that most members of DP find replusive and troubling and therefore fuels the fire for further investigation. I would even venture to suggest that even a few editors of DMOZ also find it very troubling but stay their course in hopes of trying to maybe change what little they can. The second effect this type of thread has is to help formulate a new preception of how business is done inside DMOZ and this breeds new ideas of how the system can be taken advantage of by present or future editors. Lets face it, DMOZ is money! Why would any of us want to be in this directory if it wasnt for the money that it helps each and every one of us produce on the internet. The age old reason for corruption is MONEY. Those editors who are using their powers to manipulate the ODP directory are doing so for the money, directly or indirectly. A site listed in DMOZ has an above average chance of gaining higher rankings than those type sites that have no listing. Hell when was the last time we heard someone complain about not getting listed in the Yahoo directory. Why is that? Until the masses of editors stop turning a blind eye to this type of corruption and take a positive stance against those within DMOZ whom are taking advantage of the system you remain a part of the problem and not part of the solution. If the masses of editors are corrupt then it will be an uphill battle to change the system until someone steps to the plate to expose the inter workings of the ODP system. On a side note if I was part of the upper management within ODP I would not want to bring on many new editors, simply because of the risk of having these issues exposed publicly before I could work them out internally. Hope I havent strayed to far of topic.
gworld, how ridiculous that you say you are always nice to people, and then hours later suggest someone is going senile? Besides, given your own inability to make points, if you think lmocr is losing it, that pretty much makes you a Class A retard. hey buddy - find us the last time someone said that. Then we'll talk. Until then, stop feeling so smug about 'making a point'. the fact is, nobody knows. Do you? Why do you claim you do, what do you base it on? As for the existence of the Adult section, which many of us have absolutely nothing to do with and isnt even accessible from the front page, I fail to see how that reflects badly on our work, no matter how much you'd like to tar us with the same brush. I'm still proud of my volunteer work. Who's lying? to deny that is idiotic - if DMOZ itself were corrupt, it would have to be acting in a way as to benefit itself and its owners, e.g. by delisting AOL rivals. That's not what you have in mind when you say 'DMOZ is corrupt' but I assure you, a few editors serving their own interests up until the point of being caught is a very different thing to an entire organisation being corrupt. You're too quick to tar everything with the same brush, whether this is because you are for some reason blinded by hate, or simply prone to the same mental deficiency you are so quick to accuse others of, I don't know. look guys, there's a lot of huff and puff coming from both sides, and as usual, this isn't getting anywhere. If you have well-founded concerns about editor corruption, we'd be happy to investigate them for you; but to simply come into a thread like this frothing at the mouth with shouts of Z0MG DEY R ALL KRUPT EV3N DM0ZZ IS KRUPT I KNOWS ITS TRU gets us nowhere. It's time to face up - either you're going to prove your beliefs and help us fight it, or perhaps admit to yourself its really not as bad as you believe it is and you should just relax before you have a stroke? You're all correct - an outside perspective is important to us; but so is a fair one - how much can we show until it just becomes easier for spammers to trick and deceive us? Sadly, not a lot. Should you really be massively exaggerating the problem? The ones that are, are frequently those that have been denied an editorship or had sites rejected. Fair enough, that's understandable. But bear in mind it's easier for us to pay attention to the critical voices from the guys staying calm and rational in all this (you know who you are). A lot of work is underway to show you more - as you can see from some of the screenshots posted in this thread. We'd like, for example, to give you access to more stats, so hopefully you can see what a phenomenal amount of work goes into processing all your submissions, maintaining the existing listings, and so on. Bear in mind the only visible sign of editing, to you guys, is a new link appearing in a category, or a bad one being removed. Until you've edited you cannot truly understand how much work is involved in reviewing a submission, whether the site is eventually listed or not. It's not a case of efficiency, either, or red tape. The only thing reducing my efficiency when I review submissions is that so many of the submissions are absolute junk sites, or the submission form (description etc) has to be rewritten because it's been stuffed with keywords and poor english, or because the site needs in depth investigation because people are getting better and better at disguising bad sites as good ones! None of this is inefficiency DMOZ can do anything about. I just wish Google would reduce the PR of all our categories and drop its Directory - then perhaps we'd be less attractive and all the scheisters would leave us the hell alone. And that's just the work that goes into reviewing submissions - which is about 50% of an editors work; editors also look themselves for sites to list, go through a category fixing broken links and deleting sites that are now no good any more, go looking for corruption, mentor new editors, organise categories more logically, add new categories, make new scripts and tools to make editing more efficient (there is a wealth of tools available to us, all editor-produced - it's great, but again, it adds to the learning curve).
Sure Bradley, no one knows. That is a wonderful answer to give when you're in as deep as DMOZ as a whole. The reason we don't know is that guys like you enable and help cover things up. But anyways, "Who's lying?". Everyone who wilfully deceives the public. i would say that you yourself are walking a very fine line. Many of us here have a lot more insider info on DMOZ than you might think. And there are 2 or 3 people in here who have blatently lied. So take it for what it's worth: Make sure that whatever you get out of losing your integrity is not selling you short.
I was with you till this paragraph... If anything this thread has not only showed corruption but that DMOZ is aware of it and DOES work to fix it. My point/statement I keep trying to make is: Stop trying to downlplay it. Even a little corruption in this particular environment where people's ranking depend on placement and you have 10,000 foxes guarding the hen house that's a little too much. Yes they're working to fight it but you're only fighting the blatantly obvious corruption. I'm sure there are tons of it that seasoned editors that have gone corrupt get away with every day and you never know about it. Then when good netizens try to bring it up they get all defensive. Of course some of the complaints are from teenage webmasters and are baseless, clueless and downright wrong. This can harden a person's mentality and cause the type of reactions we get from ODP editors. I understand that..... But that doesn't make it right. - This corruption IS affecting webmaster's rankings (and money). - There ARE editors that use their position for advantage over competitors. Saying "well not all of us are corrupt" doesn't cut it. And the "we're only human" defense? That my friend, is the problem....
After what she posted, the choice was between calling her an idiot or be an optimist and assume that posting is caused by physical problems, I adopted for the last choice. Forget about DMOZ for a minute, what would have you said if I posted: "Mafia is not a criminal organization, only the criminals in the Mafia are bad"
I see the DMOZ faithful are on the loose. Since my last post I have received 2 neg reps for them. With the comments that were made and no name signed I can only assume that the truth must hurt. Once again some of these DMOZ editors must hide behind a vail of secrecy. If you are going to post neg rep at least have the balls to sign your name, but then yet again I forget hiding behind anonymity is what some DMOZ editors love to do.
Why would you assume that a DMOZ editor gave you a red rep? Plenty of non-editors in this forum seem to hate each other a lot. Of course I assume all the red-reps I get are from non-editors - and none of them are signed either. It's just that no ODP editor could write such badly formed sentences.
Since you ask, I would say: "Porn is not sleazy, only those who make and distribute it are sleazy" *ducking*
Straying away from the thread but I will respond, if I ever gave red rep I post my name to it. We all dont always have to agree with eachother but at least have the balls to admit you dont agree...sign your name.
I thought you and imocr were going to start the "grandma's for porn" group in DMOZ. You can even list your illegal sites in DMOZ like the other editors there. By the way, does DMOZ still provide porn for teenagers by making them editor in adult section of DMOZ?
If you have any proof of this, you have my permission to post it here. Now, would you like me to post the name of the editor and the link to discussions about it? May be you should check with DMOZ and other editors before continuing this discussion.
Please post a link to any discussions about making a teenager edit in the Adult section. I'd like to read it with my own eyes.
The handle for the editor was Dannyboy, go to this Yahoo group and do a search for that name. You can read the discussion. Yahoo Group