Games/Gambling/Directories has vanished?

[dstanovic]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

I just want to add my 2-cents. I can understand someone being upset if they shutdown and scrapped a whole category that I had a site in. I would rather have them do that then leave 2 sites in that category. As I have always said, "DMOZ has always been a directory where the playing field is even" - you cannot buy your way in or push a competitor out. If everyone is out the playing field is once again even.

 

Just my 2-cents

[hildea]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

I had promised myself not to post in this thread, but I want to comment on this. In his/her last post, wayfarer seems to be concerned that the removal of Gambling/Directories has been done by one or a few metas, and surmises that "certain individuals" may be abusing "their position of authority".

 

The ongoing cleanup of the Gambling categories is the result of discussion and consensus in the meta community. A lot of metas (myself included) have offered their opinions and suggestions. There was widespread agreement about the handling of the directories cat. There is no danger of "evidence" getting lost - editing acitivity is logged and can be viewed by all editors, and meta discussion and activity is logged can be viewed by all metas (current and future) and staff.

 

I'd like to reassure wayfarer, and all other readers, that all abuse-prone parts of the directory are under a lot of scrutiny, and that we omnipotent meta gods don't smite anyone or anything without investigation, discussion, and consensus. /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

 

Wayfarer, I understand that you are upset, but can you please stop those more-or-less veiled implications about specific instances of abuse? If you suspect abuse, please report it. If you're worried about dishonest metas, report it to several of us. I personally promise you that if you send me an abuse report, I'll post it on the meta forum, where all metas and staff can see it. (Please be concrete, supply all evidence you have, and try to refrain from flames.) For what should be obvious reasons, we do not want accusations about specific instances of abuse in public fora. If there's any truth in the accusations, public discussion may make our investigation more difficult. And if the accusations are untrue (as I personally believe in this instance, unless and until I see some evidence), it's terribly unfair towards the people involved.

 

Regards, Hilde

[Guest WLauzon]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

"some editors are obviously not qualified. They are the ones that added those sites not john q public..."

 

I would like to see some real examples of this rather a bunch of rhetoric and accusations.

 

How do you know who added them?

 

"I know how much is to be made.."

 

Hmm, so you are saying that some editors are taking money? How about an example.

[Guest]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

Hildea wrote: “seems to be concerned that the removal of Gambling/Directories has been done by one or a few metas, and surmises that "certain individuals" may be abusing "their position of authority.”

 

On the contrary – I respect each and every editor that has taken time to address this issue. It truly appears that the greater percentage of editors, have a high level of integrity and that’s very commendable.

 

Let me clarify my position – I didn’t mean that editors are abusing their position of authority by removing this category. I meant to imply that the reason were all in this predicament is because editors put us here. So I’m not questioning the removal of the category but rather the qualifications or intent of those that created this situation.

 

Wlauzon wrote: “Hmm, so you are saying that some editors are taking money? How about an example.”

 

Absolutely not! It has nothing to do with bribery at least I don’t possess that evidence. What I was implying was that certain editors have added questionable sites many of which may be their own sites. Knowing how profitable it can be and knowing what sites specific editors have added creates a certain level of suspicion among many in the community.

 

Wlauzon wrote: “I would like to see some real examples of this rather a bunch of rhetoric and accusations.”

 

I myself have made no accusations. I have accused no specific editor of wrong doing. Its not my job to do so – the evidence is in the directory – that’s all you need. Dont you all have access to the editor notes? Can you see what sites have been added and by who?

 

As for rhetoric – I’m not doing his just to hear myself speak – wait I guess I am. No - no I’m not I have brought this issue before you and the proper actions have been taken.

 

I applaud you for that.

[Guest WLauzon]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

"certain editors have added questionable sites many of which may be their own sites..."

 

Personally, I have little or no evidence of that happening - none at all at the higher levels. The very few times I have seen it happen has been with new editors - and they do not last long once they are discovered.

 

There is some truth to the questionable in a few cases - not in the motives of the editors, but in the quality of the sites. However, since those sites are now gone, that is moot.

[Guest]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

WLauzon wrote: "There is some truth to the questionable in a few cases - not in the motives of the editors, but in the quality of the sites. However, since those sites are now gone, that is moot."

 

Yes - I guess that’s what adds to the suspicion. The editors both junior and senior have added all these questionable sites. Its not a few cases the two questionable categories consisted of about 250 sites. When I see an inappropriate site listed I consider the intentions behind listing it in the first place - maybe I shouldn't.

 

I’d hope that the editors had actually reviewed the site properly prior to listing. So that rules out not knowing the content was questionable. As for the bait and switch theory previously presented - the Internet archive is a wonderful tool which will disprove this assumption. So then why would an experienced editor list the sites? I can surmise the hutcheson idea to err is human but to err 200+ times – I don’t think that’s a very realistic assumption.

 

As for the sites no longer being there – the Guides category still consist of 80% + sites that are just as inappropriate as the ones that were in the Directories cat. I understand these two categories were large and thus more susceptible to abuse or errors, but the exaggerated number of sites that were found to be inappropriate is disturbing and cause for suspicion.

 

I believe there are a few likely scenarios - 1) the editors knew the sites were inappropriate but didn’t care, 2) the editors that added all these sites were not qualified, 3) editors didn’t use the good judgment as expected of an experienced editor.

 

Again I applaud the fact that this situation is finally being addressed and is being given the attention it deserves.

 

Have a wonderful weekend – I will – I’m on my way to Disney …

[hutcheson]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

>>I can surmise the hutcheson idea to err is human but to err 200+ times – I don’t think that’s a very realistic assumption.

 

It's VERY realistic. Trust me on this one. If ODP dumped every editor once they got to 200 mistakes, I wouldn't have made it to editall. I still remember the month that there were 5 or 6 groups of editors actively discussing how to clean up my earlier work in different parts of the directory. And just yesterday, while I was working around a long-neglected category, I fixed three blatantly-non-compliant listings, and happened to notice that they had last been edited by three different metas. Most importantly, when you're dealing with these "affiliate banner farm" sites whose sole purpose is to seem to be what they are not (advertising or customer trapping sites masquerading as goods or service providers) and whose willingness to expend almost limitless effort to improve the opacity of their deception, learning to spot the spam is a never-ending process. Sometimes the ONLY way to detect it is to say "hmm, I've tasted this same garbage with different food coloring a dozen times this month already" -- but that happens only after that same site has obtruded itself into the directory a dozen times. (This is why editors hate spam so much, and yet seem to let it in so often. The former is the inevitable effect of the latter.) And this is also why, down in the salt mines of the website review process, it's always palpably obvious that the idea of achieving omniscience, let alone emmanentizing apotheosis, is inconceivable.

 

But overall, I'd still happily compare the ODP to any other web directory -- for comprehensiveness, acuity of classification, and consistency or usefulness of descriptions. And we can make it better.

[Guest WLauzon]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

Hutch - quite true - many a time I have gone through long lists of hundreds of unreviewed, and it is not til you get down to the last 20% that you realize that you have seen some of those sites before - so then you have to go back and start weeding those out. It all takes time.

 

Wayfarer - I think you would be totaly amazed at the lenghts that some sites will go to. Just in the past few weeks I have seen hundreds of once legit URL's taken over by domain farmers and turned into porno/gambling portal spam sites. I have seen over 50 submissions from ONE company with nothing but mirror URL's. And I am not even in a bad category for that - Gambling, Adult, and Shopping are MUCH worse. When You have a backlog of thousands of sites, any you KNOW that 80% of them are bogus you tend to get burned out, careless, tired, mad, or whatever.

 

It is pretty easy to sit there and criticise what ODP is doing when YOU don't have to spend most of your time tracking down spammers, mirrors, deep links, wade through 10 pop-up windows on each site, domain hijackers etc. etc.

 

If you are so concerned with the quality of the listings, why don't you apply to be an editor...

[Khym_Chanur]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>apeuro wrote: "Frankly it's irrelevant .... No one is putting a gun to the head of John Q Public and forcing them to use the directory. Period."

 

Ive heard more times than I care to mention "this is our directory - we will do what we want!"

 

This is the exact godly attitude I was speaking about.

<p><hr></blockquote>I don't see how this is a "godly attitude". Apeuro said that we try to edit based upon what we think that user would want (trying to serve the public doesn't seem much like a "godly attitude"), and that we make mistakes (which also isn't godly). The only thing left is the declaration of "we, the editors, are the ones who decide what the users would find useful". We editors do listen to public comments, including what users would find useful, and if we think the commenter is wrong, we say so. Is it disagreeing with these public comments that's the problem? Maybe we should put the ODP guidelines up to vote by the general Internet public? Or create an over-site committee, with it's members elected by the public?

[Guest WLauzon]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

Wayfarer - You are right in many ways about the results you see, but I think you are attributing it to the wrong causes.

 

In many cases it is incompetence and/or lazyness rather than corruption.

[Guest]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

Disney is as much fun as it ever was – I recommend you all go.

 

Wlauzon wrote: “You are right in many ways about the results you see, but I think you are attributing it to the wrong causes.

 

In many cases it is incompetence and/or lazyness rather than corruption.”

 

I am willing to accept your proposal of incompetence … I merely had stated that the circumstances created a certain amount of suspicion. If your statements are true however then why shouldn’t these editors be removed from their positions?

 

I just checked and it appears that the Guides category hasn’t changed much since I left. It is still filled with inappropriate sites – affiliate farms, sites with no unique content whatsoever! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the sites are not suited for the directory – what’s the delay in removing them? If the sites in the directories category were removed why not just delete the entire Gambling structure?

 

Shrimps on the barbe … have fun.

[totalxsive]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

>> what’s the delay in removing them? <<

 

Maybe we're tackling the 1 million+ other submissions to the directory that are still waiting.

 

There are checks carried on new editors, and if we find any abuse we try to investigate and remove it as quickly as possible.

[arkoid]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

<what’s the delay in removing them?>

 

I don't know, I'm quite busy with real life responsabilities these days but if you really want to know. All sites with the titles starting with the letters A to J have been reviewed. I still have to review all the rest of these sites (K - Z).

 

<If the sites in the directories category were removed why not just delete the entire Gambling structure? >

 

I already suggested that in the past, but wasn't taken too seriously! /images/icons/wink.gif That would indeed solve a lot of problems... including posts like yours on public forums...

[Guest]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

totalxsive wrote: "There are checks carried on new editors"

 

I dont think there are any new editors in the Directories or Guides categories, in fact I believe there are several metas in that area ... Furthermore when it comes to "incompetence and/or lazyness" which WLauzon mentioned - If a senior editor is practicing under those circumstances I'd have to question every move they make - and I am.

 

arkoid wrote: "All sites with the titles starting with the letters A to J have been reviewed. "

 

Well I think you need to re-re-review them as most of the A-J sites should still be considered inappropriate based on previous reasonings. I reckon I will have to provide you with a detailed analysis outlining why a particular site is not acceptable.

[Guest]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

I just completed a detailed review of A-K sites in the Guides category. A-K Consist of 32 Sites 66% of those sites are not appropriate based on the guidelines previously discussed. I have also discovered direct connections between several of the sites listed.

 

I understand this is a time consuming process and it can become tedious at times, but if quality is your goal then please give each and every submission the attention they deserve!

 

================ EDIT AFTER TOPIC LOCK ================

 

kctipton wrote: "enough is enough" - see post below.

 

My site and several of my colleagues sites were deleted – other sites, which are just as inappropriate are still in the directory! This is not fair.

 

With all due respect - why would I want to send my research/findings to 2 of the editors of the categories in question. After all they are the ones that created this situation or at the very least let it get out of hand! If these sites have already been re-re-reviewed and they weren’t deleted I have to place a lot of emphasis on WLauzons explanation of incompetence.

[Guest]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

Wayfarer, enough is enough. There will be no more "updates" about what is being done in the Games/Gambling area.

 

If you think your efforts are so much better than those of editors, feel free to forward all of your findings to arkoid or myself and we will be happy to take a look and see what has been "missed" or whatever you think has happened.

[apeuro]

Re: A whole directory vanished?

 

Wayfarer, please feel free to forward your list of findings to any one of the 100 or so metas listed here. We seek to apply our guidelines consistently, however this forum is not the proper venue for a site-by-site analysis. Thanks.