Is DMOZ just a Bunch of Corrupt Editors?

hewhowaits · Apr 13, 2010

Hi I do understand that you will get a lot of poor cases of abuse, but I am sure you will also know it is very difficult to get concrete evidence against such a person as a meta editor.

So if I said I know an editor who does run a category and within that category there are 3 other websites that I could link that editor to "how would my report be viewed? is that not enough, you tell me how I would need to produce the evidence for such a case? and again the worst part is your complaining to someone who may or may not be part of the corruption.

Can we take this any further than the abuse report? if so where? I am not here to merely argue I believe I have a very valid case to which no one seems to listen.

Please answer this one, have you personally ever came across a corrupt editor meta or otherwise?

hewhowaits · Apr 13, 2010

Please answer this one, have you personally ever came across a corrupt editor meta or otherwise?

motsa · Apr 13, 2010

So how many meta editors are there? in one area? im not sure how that would work?

You can see how many meta editors there are (and who they are) by looking at the public list of editall+ editors at http://editors.dmoz.org/edoc/editall.html . Meta editors can edit all over the entire directory -- some may specialize in a specific language or section, but they can all edit everywhere and view/investigate all abuse reports.

So Five meta editors will review each case? where is this public record of guidlines for meta editiors please?

What he wrote was that "at least five meta-editors must review the evidence to remove the abusive editor", not that five meta editors will review each case. The meta guidelines are a part of the public guidelines and can be viewed at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/ .

And I am not here to "throw dust" just make sense of the way in which the reports are conducted to start with, there certianly is some secrets, and surely as a meta editor you must have in your time came across corrupt editors?

No one has ever said that there are no abusive editors. That's why we take allegations very seriously.

motsa · Apr 13, 2010

So if I said I know an editor who does run a category and within that category there are 3 other websites that I could link that editor to "how would my report be viewed? is that not enough, you tell me how I would need to produce the evidence for such a case? and again the worst part is your complaining to someone who may or may not be part of the corruption.

Presumably you know which editor you're talking about -- you can see whether or not they're a meta editor by looking at the editall+ list. (If you see "meta" next to their names in the list, then you know they can read abuse reports.) As for the situation you mention, the more information you could provide, the better: how you know they're associated with the sites, etc. It's possible such a situation might be abuse, but it's also possible it isn't -- just because someone is listed as an editor in a category doesn't mean they've made all of the edits in it. Every editor of a parent category and all editall+ editors can edit there and multiple editors could be responsible for the listings in question. We won't know until it's reported and investigated.

Can we take this any further than the abuse report? if so where? I am not here to merely argue I believe I have a very valid case to which no one seems to listen.

If the editor in question isn't a catmod, meta, or admin editor, then I would urge you to use the abuse reporting system -- it ensures that you aren't relying on one person to investigate the issue. Have you already used the abuse reporting system?

Please answer this one, have you personally ever came across a corrupt editor meta or otherwise?

Meta editors have been removed for abuse, yes. Just because someone is a meta editor (or any other level of editor) doesn't put them "above the law".

hutcheson · Apr 13, 2010

surely as a meta editor you must have in your time came across corrupt editors?

That's a misleading way of representing a half-truth.

Here's the truth. I've come across thousands, or tens of thousands, of corrupt website promoters. And, by deceit and treachery, dozens of those corrupt website promoters have obtained editing permissions.

(That doesn't make them part of the editing community, just like Stalinist spies didn't become part of free-world organizations. They're still acting like corrupt website promoters. And they don't deserve to be called editors. They're nothing but treacherous, lying, website promoters pretending to be editors, for their own deceitful website promotion goals.)

The website promoting communities don't deport treacherous, lying, website promoters who get caught. The ODP editing community does.

hewhowaits · Apr 13, 2010

pvgool said:
Correct, we govern ourself. Although there are a few AOL people involved for technical and legal stuff. They also check that the editors commucity stays within the set bouderies.

I prefer to call it democracy. Real democray. 1 man/woman 1 vote and everybody can check on the other members, thats not a democracy you are not alloowing the users to vote, just the higharcy, letting users vote would be democracy!

I always write my own opinion. And I know it is not liked by all. I don't care. And I am not afraid to be removed from DMOZ for expressing my opinion because that is no reason for removal. Valid point!

Nope. Reports can not be deleted. I can check back to 2002 when we started with the abuse report system.
Nothing in DMOZ is ever deleted. As a result we can always check what has happened in the past.
I know nothing is deleted I checked on the latest amount of dead links still in there! lol

For legal reasons this is not possible. Privacy laws prohibit publication of such lists. "fair enough, why not just list the amount of editors who have been removed, thats perfectly legal, and maybe some reasons why they where removed?

If the answers are always the same it might be that those answers are the truth. Ever tought about that. "Yes regularly, but it doesnt wash im afraid" I dont deny the answers are the truth what I am saying is they dont answer the questions most are asking, we just get this type of thing everyone being defensive and saying well thats just the way it is, hard luck" I still dont see any end to this problem, other than ODP/Dmoz being more open and accessable with a governing body in place, a watchdog

This is a prediction already made some 10 years ago. Maybe it will happen sometime. I wouldn't like to see such a wonderfull communty to end but if it did I will easily find another interesting hobby. True it was made 10yrs ago but then again the internet was not as big then, there was little competition, no one really knew what dmoz was, it's more common place now and people are talking about it, avoiding such questions and answering like a machine surely cannot go on.

Just write down what you know and how you have come to the conclusion that there is abuse. That is enough. Sure thats a great Idea should I just send the report to you?

Just shouting that there is corruption will not do the job. It seems nothing will, WHY are Dmoz not putting anything in place to manage this rouge editors, please dont answe with ohh they ahve this report system, thats a failure, it does not work clearly, if it did why are so many people so angry with the system and the difficulty in getting answers from Dmoz. I know its like a hobby and there is many things to get through and you have better things to do, but Dmoz is meant to be for making the internet better like a great big directory of great websites, half the links dont work, theres loads of pants websites like geo sites and alike, tell me which editor thought that they add value to the internet? or to Dmoz.

BTW. The fact that a suggested website is not listed is not proof of abuse. Of course not But being as once you submit your website you dont here anything back for over 2 years how would anyone know why there site had not been included, my god in this day and age could Dmoz not just send an automated email saying your site has been declined or accepted, or even thank you for submitting your site it will be reviewed in 1000 days. I know all the editors are going to be saying "we are not just here to list your sites" but hey guys ultimately thats auctually what you are doing listing sites into a directory via a reveiw process "polish it how you like it is what it is" !

So have you ever came across an editor who is or has been corrupt ?

hewhowaits · Apr 13, 2010

hutcheson said:
That's a misleading way of representing a half-truth.

Here's the truth. I've come across thousands, or tens of thousands, of corrupt website promoters. And, by deceit and treachery, dozens of those corrupt website promoters have obtained editing permissions. "So there in lies the problem, all these fools who become Dmoz editors and then use it for there own gain, I am not such a person. But how the hell can you tell the difference who is good who is bad when its so dam easy to become an editor and again with no real boss, no vetting or checks on each person".

(That doesn't make them part of the editing community, just like Stalinist spies didn't become part of free-world organizations. They're still acting like corrupt website promoters. And they don't deserve to be called editors. They're nothing but treacherous, lying, website promoters pretending to be editors, for their own deceitful website promotion goals.)

"So you Dont deny that there are people who edit for Dmoz who are corrupt?"

motsa · Apr 13, 2010

I prefer to call it democracy. Real democray. 1 man/woman 1 vote and everybody can check on the other members, thats not a democracy you are not alloowing the users to vote, just the higharcy, letting users vote would be democracy!

By that definition, you would expect everyone on the planet to be able to vote in every democratic country's elections. Clearly that doesn't happen so allowing everyone to vote on everything is obviously not a requirement for a democracy.

(By the way, it's really hard to extract your own comments from all of the quoted comments in your post. If you want to make it easier to read your posts, you need to put quote tags around each of the snippets of quoted text, not just a single opening quote tag at the beginning. Just a tip.)

hewhowaits · Apr 13, 2010

yes we are all prone to errors once i a while. so thanks for the tip.

we are not talking about the planet here we are talking about Dmoz, so clearly I would have meant that! you said democarcy, I disagree. you obviously understood what I meant or you wouldnt have felt the need to correct me, and in tern side stepping that fact that a democracy does have a voting system where as you had compared it to Dmoz which does not! just a tip.

Anyhow you have no power to change anything at Dmoz, which is a shame because maybe then we could make progress with where this is going, these conversations just go on and on, with both sides not being able to make a change to anything, again thats not a democracy is it.

Why not set up a vote on here regarding the issues with Dmoz, put your money where your mouth is and put it to a vote!

motsa · Apr 13, 2010

we are not talking about the planet here we are talking about Dmoz, so clearly I would have meant that! you said democarcy, I disagree. you obviously understood what I meant or you wouldnt have felt the need to correct me, and in tern side stepping that fact that a democracy does have a voting system where as you had compared it to Dmoz which does not! just a tip.

I never said the ODP was a democracy. The reason I mentioned the planet is because, if someone were to consider the ODP a democracy, its voting constituents are its editors, not its users -- not unlike a country's voters being residents of that country, not visitors from somewhere else in the world. Also, democracies have voting systems but not all actions in a democracy are taken after a democratic vote.

Anyhow you have no power to change anything at Dmoz, which is a shame because maybe then we could make progress with where this is going, these conversations just go on and on, with both sides not being able to make a change to anything, again thats not a democracy is it.

*If* I had the power to make sweeping changes at the ODP, we probably still would be at odds because the changes I would make would probably not be the changes you want.

Why not set up a vote on here regarding the issues with Dmoz, put your money where your mouth is and put it to a vote!

Why would I? As I already said, I don't personally call it a democracy. (It has many democratic practices and aspects, but that doesn't make it a democracies.) *If* I were going to set up a vote, it would be among editors, not the public. But then again, I don't own the ODP. If AOL wants to poll the general public regarding the future of the ODP, I'm sure they'll do it, though they probably wouldn't do it here since this is an unofficial editor-run forum, not an AOL-run site.

pvgool · Apr 13, 2010

hewhowaits said:
WHY are Dmoz not putting anything in place to manage this rouge editors,

We have many things in place to check on editors. The public abuse report system is just one of them.

once you submit your website you dont here anything back for over 2 years how would anyone know why there site had not been included,

You don't submit a website. You suggest a website. The difference may seem small but for us the difference is very big. Submit would mean that it was part of a service we provide. The fact is that we do not have a service for people to get their website listed. Originaly this feature was ment for people to suggest a website they found on the internet. Not to suggest their own website.

my god in this day and age could Dmoz not just send an automated email saying your site has been declined or accepted, or even thank you for submitting your site it will be reviewed in 1000 days.

Why would we tell people their website is listed? You can see that for yourself.
Why would we tell people their website is rejected? We already provide all reasons for rejection. And our guidelines ask not to suggest such websites. So, why tell people they violated our guidelines.
And you already get a thank you message, it is on your screen when you have completed the suggestion process.
As we ourself do not know when a suggested website will be reviewed we can not tell you when it will happen.

hutcheson · Apr 13, 2010

The only "changes" that anyone has been discussing is the possibility of removing demonstrably abusive editors.

The volunteer meta-editors have that power (and, as it happens, regularly use it.)

Anyone has the power to influence change, by making suggestions (or providing evidence that seems to suggest abuse.)

In my experience, that leaves so many things that could be profitably changed by me, that I haven't had time or inclination to look for more "power to change."

In effect, the ODP is not a hierarchy or a democracy--it's best described as a cross between meritocracy and ergatocracy--what matters is not how much status you have, or how many people you can adduce for your opinion, but how much work you do, and how well you do it.

Which is probably the most important question YOU should answer for YOURSELF: Who would YOU trust?

hewhowaits · Apr 14, 2010

hutcheson said:
Anyone has the power to influence change, by making suggestions (or providing evidence that seems to suggest abuse.)

In my experience, that leaves so many things that could be profitably changed by me, that I haven't had time or inclination to look for more "power to change."

In effect, the ODP is not a hierarchy or a democracy--it's best described as a cross between meritocracy and ergatocracy--what matters is not how much status you have, or how many people you can adduce for your opinion, but how much work you do, and how well you do it.

Which is probably the most important question YOU should answer for YOURSELF: Who would YOU trust?

Hi again OK, fine I will submit my abuse report again and this time in more detail, heres one for you though I bet you $1000 I can tell you who will respond to my abuse claim now why would that be? why would this person respond to me??? I clearly do not trust Dmoz and I have good reason.

The Old Sarge · Apr 14, 2010

hewhowaits said:
I clearly do not trust Dmoz and I have good reason.

No offence intended, but if you really feel that way, why have you invested so much time and energy here?

hewhowaits · Apr 14, 2010

The Old Sarge said:
No offence intended, but if you really feel that way, why have you invested so much time and energy here?

None taken, I was looking for more views on the subject, I do not think that every editior at Dmoz is bent, but there are some, and in fact having invested this time here hasnt done me any harm. I diddnt start the thread anyhow. It's always interesting to see who feels the need to reply to what I have to say.

motsa · Apr 14, 2010

Hi again OK, fine I will submit my abuse report again and this time in more detail,

Please do. The more detail, the better.

herewego · Apr 22, 2010

pvgool said:
> who will read this report I send?
Only editors with function of Meta, CatMod or Admin can read the abuse reports. All reports that I have seen are looked at by more than one of them.
> will it be the boss of ODP?
There is no "boss". All editors are equal. Some just have extra privileges, those editors have shown over the years that they can be trusted.
DMOZ is a community in which all editors can check the activities of all other editors. Such a self control is very effective.

Sorry have to laugh here - anyone hear of George Orwell. All editors are equal just some are more equal than others.

mauri · Apr 23, 2010

I believe you are misinterpreting the meaining of "equal". What you call the boss is AOL, not the editors. AOL owns and legally represents Dmoz,
the editors are the group of people that take care of the directory in many of its matters. And yes, talking about the editor community in general, all editors are equal.

dave123456 · Apr 25, 2010

Honestly, it makes me chuckle just how blinkered the editors/admin on here are when it comes to editor abuse of privilege.

All I ever read is that we should report abuse and that one particular incident cannot by definition constitute an endemic culture of abuse. What a load of garbage. Of course one webmaster cannot ever have conclusive proof of systematic editor abuse. By definition, a webmaster can only ever have evidence regarding their own situation. How about you aggregate all the complaints on here and see whether that constitutes a ‘pattern’.

I’ve sent numerous emails (submissions, editor applications, complaints) and I’ve not had one reply. That’s why no-one bothers to wasting their time sending emails to your abuse ‘hotline’.

As I’ve already stated in another post on this topic, I believe that the majority of editors probably are genuine but there are clearly enough bad apples to prevent a good proportion of decent websites gaining access to what unfortunately remains an influential (although diminishing) factor of the SEO equation.

I too hope DMOZ is ‘taken off the shelf’ asap so those of us that aren’t allowed in the ‘closed shop’ can get on competing without one hand tied behind our backs.

pvgool · Apr 25, 2010

dave123456 said:
I’ve sent numerous emails (submissions, editor applications, complaints) and I’ve not had one reply.

Did you realy mean "emails"? Email is not the way to suggest a website or to become an editor.
Due to some very bad experiences in the past we advise editors not to answer any emails from websmasters asking about their website.
If you did mean the proper way to suggest a website, you will never get a reply (except for the confirmation you will see on screen direct after submission). For an editor application you will always get a reply, but we know that emails are lost because of to strict spam rules on teh receiver end. If you did not get a reply you can ask in the proper way for a status of the editor application.
Complaints, many are not answered but also a lot are answered. It depends on the type of complaint.

an influential (although diminishing) factor of the SEO equation.

DMOZ does not care about any SEO influence. By fact we do not believe that there is nor was an influential factor at all.

I too hope DMOZ is ‘taken off the shelf’ asap so those of us that aren’t allowed in the ‘closed shop’ can get on competing without one hand tied behind our backs.

The only thing that keeps your hand tied is your own misbelief. To make a website a success the onwer will have to work hard and never trust on outside influences. Everyone can make his website into a success with or without DMOZ (or any other source). Just look at all those website that are not listed in DMOZ and are still a success. On the other hand there are mant websites listed in DMOZ that are not a success. It comes all down to the doing of the website's owner / webmaster.

Is DMOZ just a Bunch of Corrupt Editors?

hewhowaits

Member

hewhowaits

Member

motsa

motsa

hutcheson

hewhowaits

Member

hewhowaits

Member

motsa

hewhowaits

Member

motsa

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

hutcheson

hewhowaits

Member

The Old Sarge

Member

hewhowaits

Member

motsa

herewego

Member

mauri

dave123456

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv