The biggest fraud on the Internet - DMOZ/ODP

But can't. Wants to be Meta /Admin.

 

Which revolution was worth the effort? Most of them ended up in disaster but who knows...

I'm conquistador in heart so I better don't go near it.

Well you don't have to follow someones path exactly, you can skip few years.

Please don't remained me, I live in a country were most profitable job is MP - sleep all day and get paycheck each month and vote to give yourself a raise from time to time!

You really think that with current DMOZ editor "monthly causalities ratio" anyone would notice that, let alone cared?

 

Please add:

And if I can't find any, I will see corruption where there is none.

 

I think you are mixing the concepts, they don't find corruption where there is none, they find those who oppose corruption and label them as corrupt.

 

I lived under Margaret Thatcher for 11 years. Now we're even.

I think you missed the bit where I left the ODP altogether. Makes it rather difficult to become a member of any government doesn't it. You must also have missed that bit where I started a little internal debate on all the issues concerning Adult including those multiple deeplinks which appears to have raised the profile of those issues amongst the 99.999% of editors who don't visit this forum. But then you are an editor, why didn't you start that internal thread and make your fellow editors aware? You talk big out here but are quiet as a lamb internally where it matters, where you could persuade editors of your theories.

Back in that thread I did suggest that an option to get rid of the problem of corruption in Adult was actually to dump the branch. Genie also suggested it here a day or so ago. Since that would actually solve 99% of the corruption issues in the whole directory where was your support for that, your agreement it would be a good idea? I'd even bet if you put it to the vote a large majority of editors would actually vote to dump, i.e. it would have popular support amongst the troops. But instead your tactic was to deride Genie and try and paint her as turning a blind eye to corruption and an obedient loyalist. So how is it you can reconcile your constant anti-corruption stance with trying to preserve the primary source of corruption opportunities? In fact your put-down to Genie's suggestion puts you in the same class as the Adult editors who resort to the exact same tactics of derision to preserve the branch.

You once mentioned being offered favours to shut up about Adult. Did you perhaps accept favours to act as a sabateur of any real efforts to deal with the Adult branch - it would explain why you indiscriminately attack both the supporters and opponents of Adult branch.

 

If I thought Genie was in any way serious in her postings, I would have definitely would have supported her but her postings were not serious. Those postings were just another version of our friends neb postings that claims there is a small problem of corruption in DMOZ but the "great beloved leaders" are fighting hard, day and night against it. Simply baffle gab to confuse the situation and take away the criticism. She is not ready to admit to any systematic corruption problems in those categories, so the next question will be then why is she suggesting to dump those categories. It doesn't make any sense and anyone can point to that.
The first step to finding any solution is the admittance of the present day problems.

 

Adult did have a problem with widespread corruption. It was purged of a great many corrupt editors some time back. But a great many of their listings also remained, creating a situation where it appears still to be corrupt on a widespread scale. So the corrupt editors were purged but the benefits of their corruption remained. You have pointed out categories of sites as evidence of corruption and when checked it was indeed evidence of corruption but (as you also knew) the editors listing those sites had already been removed. Largely the sites were left because there were insufficient willing resources to go in and sort out the mess, leaving the removed corrupt editors with the fruits of their corruption intact. The answer to all this is simply to remove the whole lot, removing the gains made by corrupt and removed editors and forever preventing a repetition. As I have advocated, as Genie has advocated, as many others have supported.

 

Has the Meta or editor been removed? NO. So your tale of corruption in the past is a good story but has nothing to do with reality. Corruption and abuse in DMOZ is present and thriving.

 

Many thanks for the good advice and understood it was well intended right from the start. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially in text, and see comments as constructive.

There are parts of my site that have not been linked to the main as of yet and they are quite comprehensive. This includes a huge directory. I'm actually hoping to submit a request for a critique some time over the next week.