The biggest fraud on the Internet - DMOZ/ODP

Wow! And I thought I was a leading light of the DMOZ Revolutionary Front - certainly the Admins think so. They will be pleased to know I am an apologist though. Perhaps they will send me an email inviting me back to take up that official position on a salaried basis. Perhaps not. Whilst I have a great number of issues with DMOZ, most of them far more serious than your obsession with an Adult meta, I find it difficult not to respond to patent fantasy figments of a paranoid mind. It says something about your powers of persuasion that some of the most ardent opponents of the current DMOZ system end up having to defend it against ludicrous exaggerations.

I would say 99.75% of listings as a minimum.

Who has their eyes closed? If there is nothing to see in terms of widespread systematic abuse then it can only be seen by those with a vivid imagination such as your own.

 

You gotta love "metas." They are so dignified. They always behave in a manner that is to the ODP's credit.

 

There is nothing wrong with quoting a post. What I did connect was that it was a coincidence that the editor of the DMOZ section who happens to take care of the law areas happened to go to my "obscure" site and make 2 dozen posts with two different hyperlinks in the signature. I found it a remarkable coincidence.

I didn't accuse anyone of any real wrongdoing and all this person had to do was politely discuss the matter.

As was stated before: "Identify the single best category for your site. The Open Directory has an enormous array of subjects to choose from. You should submit a site to the single most relevant category. Sites submitted to inappropriate or unrelated categories may be rejected or removed."

Hilarious. As you and even the average idiot knows, there is no incentive for the cia to self promote itself in DMOZ. There is for individuals who have commercial web sites. It's even more questionable when those individuals with vested interests are controlling the rights to appear in those areas.

As I said, I'm always open to discussion and would have enjoyed it if he would have been civil. The kind of openly boorish, arrogant and condescending fashion he displayed here does not reflect any kind of professionalism that I've seen in most places. If he'd like to reread, apologize and contact me here and/or privately, I'm always willing to talk. But the text speaks for itself.

 

Revolutionary Front?

That is like farting in bathtub and calling it a hurricane. Most of changes that you advocate are just cosmetic changes that are no danger to the system in place and will solve no problems. It is fully possible that admins can imagine that your ideas are a treat but we all know how smart they are, don't we?

 

That one is not really clear because there are a few circumstances where a site can be submitted to several locations. It all gets very complicated. But for many sites it is true because otherwise people would submit their site to every bloody category. Further listings are normally at the discretion of an editor. Submit once (or however many times the guidelines allow depending on the site type) but this can and does often result in a number of listings in different categories depending on the editor who reviews it.

I don't know, getting rid of the Adult branch would solve 99% of the accusations of corruption, save huge amounts of time, and shut you up until you find something else to whinge about.

 

I already suggested that but man here seem to be strongly appose to the idea.

 

By "they", I assume you mean the Admins, Adult Metas, and Adult Editors?

 

Man here is not APPOSE to the idea. Man here sugessting the Open Directory be Open for public.

 

You've got the wrong directory. The ODP has never been open in the sense of a free for all and it only claims to have been founded in the spirit of Open Source, not is Open Source nor currently run in the spirit of Open Source. I would like to see a lot more openness personally but it is the private property of the AOL corporation and entirely up to them. You are being misled by the word "Open".

I think you could include those in the "they".

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

Wow. I'm really surprised. Most DMOZ Senior Editors and Ex barks like a bored housewife who haven't had any since honeymoon. Whew !!!

 

Aha - yes, I can see how complicated things can get. After having years to sort all this complicated stuff out, the rules still end up being "in the sole discretion" of an editor. Furthermore, that editor can also have built-in conflicts of interest which include being in charge of a section where he may have numerous sites that the editor owns. A slow dolphin could figure out how this causes problems.

The only one whining, whinging, and crying here is you, for all of the abused. All I did was ask about the incredible coincidence that someone who did editing at dmoz in a section I just submitted was putting up posts on my site with numerous hyperlinks of his competitive site in the signature. It turns out that my guess may have been "dead on balls accurate", another legal term.

I can understand why you guys have gone so ballistic. My best friend's 4 year old neice acts the same way.

 

Only for few editors, whole community of dmoz getting defames.

 

unfortunately those few editors, effectively control DMOZ.

 

Slinky with all due respect I would advise against this tactic, at least until you improve your website.

I took a quick look to compare arl's directory to yours. I chose the letter P looking for Private Investigators. This is taken directly from an example you gave us in your first post so I assume it's a fair comparison? I clicked on every topic in the drop down list and all of them led back to your home page. I tried the same with R and got the same results. Compare this to arl's directory listings for Private Investigators and you'll see why his directory can be listed and yours cannot.

As it is, if you submit this directory any editor will have to reject it as lacking content or being broken. I don't know which is the case with your directory but that would be up to the webmaster (you?) to determine, and hopefully correct.

Maybe you aren't aware of this so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but no editor "oversees" any part of the directory. For example, I can and do edit in many of the same areas as alarson. I've never had any communication with him and I don't know him at all so please take this as an impartial opinion, as it's intended.

 

Some of them are here and some aspiring to be whether active or not are presently here too.

 

Well as I lived in communism for 14 years I can give you my expert opinion that you're not Che, maybe Castro with long boring speeches about revolution.

If you want to be true leader you must start guerilla war against oppressor since Gandhi tactics obviously aren't working! Hack into DMOZ and clean up thousands of queued websites, add many great sites DMOZ is missing and delete illegal crap! That should get you support of the working masses, El Comandante!

Viva La Revolution!

 

That is no longer true. There is no incentice for anyone to "promote" themselves with DMOZ since there is no measurable effect on rankings beyond what you'd expect to see from any normal link. And there sure isn't traffic.

It does reflect the general condescension cultivated in the ODP, and the attitude an editor must display to webmasters to "fit in" and get ahead in the shrinking ranks. This kind of behavior is rewarded and reinforced in the internal forums. It is considered highly desirable.

 

What a waste of time that would be!

Would the "great sites" receive more traffic from a listing? NO!
Would the illegal sites rankings suffer from deletion? NO!
Would the "great sites" ranking increase from a listing? NO!
Would it make a difference if queues were emptied? NO!

The ODP is an academic exercize. Is it worth the effort of a revolution?

Join Google Co-Op. It's like a new continent.

 

May be you are too young to know but Castro actually went to Cuba and fought against Batista before taking the power and making long boring speeches. Therefore, this comparison doesn't work either.

I think brizzie critics is more like a back bench MP criticizing the government while hoping for a cabinet post in the present or future government.

The first step toward the real changes in DMOZ will start by simply saying:

I am an editor, I know there is corruption in DMOZ and I will not tolerate it anymore.