ukaffiliates Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 Hello All, I would like to get your valued opinion on whether or not you find it ethical/legal for large affiliates to be editors on Dmoz. I understand editors have a lot of influence over various websites and we have found a particular affiliate who has "way to many number one listings on Google to be considered normal." The particular affiliate/editor has reputed earnings of up to $100K per month as a result. Please excuse my ignorance here, but as an editor, does this give you the ability to manipulate your own listings on Google should you host multiple websites. Also, when a complaint is filed to Google Spam, is it managed by google itself of given to editors of dmoz - very unclear here and any insight would be appreciated? For the record - I believe this to be a very isolated case and am NOT casting aspersions on most Dmoz editors ok. Your feedback is welcomed and appreciated. UK Affiliate
Meta nea Posted June 1, 2006 Meta Posted June 1, 2006 I'm not quite sure what you mean by "affiliate" -- yes, editors can be affiliated with sites but are of course forbidden to treat their affiliations different from any other sites. We can't manipulate listings in Google. I don't think I can put it plainer than that Google and dmoz.org are two different entities, and we don't share each other's secrets. Also, when a complaint is filed to Google Spam, is it managed by google itself of given to editors of dmoz - very unclear here and any insight would be appreciated? If you write to Google, you reach Google and not DMOZ. What exactly do you mean by Google Spam? Curlie Meta and kMeta editor nea
Meta windharp Posted June 1, 2006 Meta Posted June 1, 2006 I would like to get your valued opinion on whether or not you find it ethical/legal for large affiliates to be editors on Dmoz. I suggest you read our Conflicts of Interest section, which pretty much sums it up: Everyone is welcome to apply to join the ODP as long as he/she does not act contrary to the goals of the ODP. We don't care what someone could do, we care what someone really does. If you have proof of an editor abusing the ODP for his own sake, feel free to file an abuse report. Curlie Meta/kMeta Editor windharp
ukaffiliates Posted June 14, 2006 Author Posted June 14, 2006 Hi All, Sorry for not getting back sooner. I have been away on business. Nea, an affiliate is someone who links to someone selling a product and gets paid a commission if a sale takes place. This can be easily tracked across the internet. Feel free to look here if you require more information. <URL removed> I do realise Dmoz and Google are 2 seprate companies, however, Google gets it's directory from Dmoz. Please refer here. <URL removed> I have read the conflicts section - reported this and Dmoz are quite happy to this arrangement to continue obviously as I have not heard back from them - thought they would like to know about this one actually - but no. This therefore leads me to beleive that all I have to do is become an editor also and I will be able to do the same as this offending affiliate/dmoz editor has done. I also would like to earn $100K per month from this loophole. Feedback is welcomed here. UK Affiliate
ukaffiliates Posted June 14, 2006 Author Posted June 14, 2006 I just noticed it removed my URL's Nea - please use this <URL removed> The second URL was this <URL removed> Please place www. infront of these obvuiously but I guess I dont need to tell you guys that :-) This would have to be the greatest find this century - thanks Dmoz - if one editor is allowed to do this - so should we all. UK Affiliates
Meta hutcheson Posted June 14, 2006 Meta Posted June 14, 2006 It's not clear from what you say that (1) you actually saw any problem in the DIRECTORY, or if you did, that you reported it to the ODP rather than Google. (Google doesn't pass on that kind of information to us.) If you did see a problem in the open DIRECTORY (either here or at directory.google.com), please report it (if you haven't already) using the "report abuse/spam" link at DMOZ.ORG. If it's an obvious thing involving specific directory listings, and you don't mind everyone on the web seeing your comment, and you WOULD like to see a response -- you can also use the "quality feedback" forum thread in these forums. Either way, we love to hear about actual problems with the directory. But people who make too much money, or do too well in Google search results, are out of our control. Please report them to the Inland Revenue or Google respectively. -------- added We moderators routinely snip URLs from posts if they don't seem germane. In this case, editors are aware from personal experience of both Google's use of the ODP, and the definition of affiliate SITES. (The former is good, and the latter are, um, non-listable.) However, we don't usually talk about "people" having "links". People have WEBSITES (that is, they are affiliated with them), and the WEBSITES have (affiliate) links. In our activity here, that tends to be an important categorical distinction, hence the confusion caused by your carelessly ambiguous phrasing. We deal with people-website affiliations on, say, editor applications, and with website-website affiliations when editing ODP categories.
motsa Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 I have read the conflicts section - reported this and Dmoz are quite happy to this arrangement to continue obviously as I have not heard back from them - thought they would like to know about this one actually - but no. All abuse reports are thoroughly investigated but keep in mind that what you suspect is abuse isn't necessarily abuse. If the report has been closed and nothing that you think should have been done was done, then you can take it that no abuse was found during the investigation.
ukaffiliates Posted June 14, 2006 Author Posted June 14, 2006 Thanks for the feedback hutch. Unfortunately I am not in a position to list the exact situation here - I am hopeful you understand. We believe abuse has happened and has been very subtle to say the least. This is why they have never been questioned/banned to date. They operate under several differing companies/websites. I am not suprised at the repsonse even after we repeatidly reported this incident to dmoz. It is hard to actually proove this. Could some please let me know the URL where I can check the progress of our last report (via the lengthy number they issued me), I seem to have misplaced that URL. I will report back to you all what they have to say this time. UK Affiliates
ukaffiliates Posted June 14, 2006 Author Posted June 14, 2006 Thanks Mosta - I checked a while back and its the same response. "Its current status is resolved - This report has been resolved. We do not disclose the details of our findings, but if abusive editing was found it will be rectified. Thank you for your report. " This person still is an editor - I just checked. I have placed a lot of effort into this investigation and supplied Dmoz with findings. As the saying goes, "if you can't beat them, join them" - my family could also use an extra $100K per month from manipulating the system. Let me have a chat to a friend who is an editor - I am sure he would like to go halves to proove my point. Thanks for your time all UK AFFILIATES
motsa Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 "Its current status is resolved - This report has been resolved. We do not disclose the details of our findings, but if abusive editing was found it will be rectified. Thank you for your report. " This person still is an editor - I just checked. I have placed a lot of effort into this investigation and supplied Dmoz with findings.And we appreciate your effort. But there has been no ODP-related abuse involving that editor or the sites you are concerned about. Whether or not there's been any wrongdoing from a Google point of view, I couldn't tell you as that is not the ODP's concern. All that matters is that there has been absolutely no ODP-related abuse (not just no provable abuse but no abuse at all).
Meta nea Posted June 14, 2006 Meta Posted June 14, 2006 This person still is an editor - I just checked. As a point of interest, how did you check? Curlie Meta and kMeta editor nea
critic009 Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 All abuse reports are thoroughly investigated but keep in mind that what you suspect is abuse isn't necessarily abuse. If the report has been closed and nothing that you think should have been done was done, then you can take it that no abuse was found during the investigation. Further editors might not know enough about the issue(s) to be able to identify the abuse.
chaos127 Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 What issues? The key questions are: Is the editor failing to comply with the editing guidelines? Is the editor favouring certain sites? Is the editor connected with those sites? Suffice to say there are plenty of meta editors who are experts in determining the answers to all three of those questions.
critic009 Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 What issues? The key questions are: Is the editor failing to comply with the editing guidelines? Is the editor favouring certain sites? Is the editor connected with those sites? Obvious to me that is not the case at all. Seen in several categories 75% or more of the sites, for example, are ALL directly connected and in each case the editor DOES have a direct AND/OR indirect connection as well.
RZ Admin photofox Posted August 25, 2006 RZ Admin Posted August 25, 2006 critic009, If you suspect an editor is abusing their position, then please report it using the public abuse report system: http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ Thank you. Curlie Admin photofox
Meta shadow575 Posted August 25, 2006 Meta Posted August 25, 2006 Obvious to me that is not the case at all. Seen in several categories 75% or more of the sites, for example, are ALL directly connected and in each case the editor DOES have a direct AND/OR indirect connection as well. File an abuse report with your evidence that the editor is connected or PM me the information and evidence and I will do it for you. I grow tired of this baseless allegation of mass corruption (gw) and an unwillingness to provide one sliver of evidence to back it up. Shadow *The opinions I offer are my own and may not represent the opinions of Curlie.org or other editors.* It can take anywhere from two hours to several years for a site review to take place. I do not respond to private messages requesting site status checks. _______________________________________________ https://shadow575.wordpress.com/
critic009 Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 File an abuse report with your evidence that the editor is connected or PM me the information and evidence and I will do it for you. I grow tired of this baseless allegation of mass corruption (gw) and an unwillingness to provide one sliver of evidence to back it up. Message sent.
Budalata Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 "earnings of up to $100K per month as a result" - it sounds really good... "Please excuse my ignorance here, but as an editor, does this give you the ability to manipulate your own listings on Google should you host multiple websites" - Well, it is not so easy to do that; does this means, that we can manipulate Google ? critic009, do you really believe that whoever can manipulate Google ? Do you really think that Google will risk his whole business by using data from DMOZ - a human edited category, in case that this data is SO easy to be manipulated and in case that if you have multiple listings is SO easy to start gaining too much ? Google is Google because of giving real results. I suppose that about 80% from users are finding what they need in the first 10 results. So ? I also suppose that those persons if invest $100k instead in ODP editors, but in their business or in hiring qualified personel will have more profits. I am new editor in DMOZ, and i can assure you that senior editors are spending too much time in teaching us, and in answering here - which by my humble opinion is loosing time. See this - it is marked like IMPORTANT : How To Report Suspected Abuse By An Editor Please excuse me if i havent clarified what i would like to express exactly - my english is not good enough. Do we need 17 posts here to tell someone "How To Report Suspected Abuse By An Editor" Regards
Meta hutcheson Posted September 5, 2006 Meta Posted September 5, 2006 Everytime anyone, anywhere, claims to know about abuse by an editor, we need enough posts to tell everyone who heard the allegations, how genuine abuse can be reported. That way, everyone, everywhere, KNOWS how genuine abuse can be stopped. That is the best -- the only -- defense against false charges of abuse. (And there are a lot of false charges: although most of them seem to be by affiliate spammers who COULDN'T find an editor to abuse on THEIR behalf.)
chaz7979 Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 What issues? The key questions are: Is the editor failing to comply with the editing guidelines? Is the editor favouring certain sites? Is the editor connected with those sites? Suffice to say there are plenty of meta editors who are experts in determining the answers to all three of those questions. Just an observation. What if the editor is adding sites that are all affiliated without knowing. If I registered 10 domains and hosting under 10 different hosting accounts with 10 dummy LLC's how would anyone know? Not saying I do, but I have seen accounts of things such as this on sitepoint. Where people have gone so far as to say things like "if you can find even 1 site that I am affiliated with I will pay you 10k" The person was not kidding either. He is a well known webmaster who earns six figures per month. He said the 10k would be worth it to tighten up his security with his lawyers. I am not saying this person abuses anything. I wouldnt know. He has often said he uses both black and white hat methods and diversifies his efforts. He also says he has well over 500 sites and he is looking to hve 500 more by 2007. This isnt just some kid talking either. This is a well respected webmaster. Just making the point, an editor might not even know what he/she has done wrong. No 'expert' would be able to tell either. If you think you can, I will try and find his post where he offers 10k to find any sites that are affiliated. critic009, do you really believe that whoever can manipulate Google ? Do you really think that Google will risk his whole business by using data from DMOZ - a human edited category I'm not sure why you do not know this but DMOZ does manipulate Google. A listing here means a higher ranking than not being listed, AND it has been proven that it will get your site indexed faster when its first released. Its a real shot of PR. (And there are a lot of false charges: although most of them seem to be by affiliate spammers who COULDN'T find an editor to abuse on THEIR behalf.) Ever consider it takes scum to know scum? It is known that criminals rat out other criminals. Its the best way to catch them. The shadiest probably know all the tricks and that is how they find these people out. I would listen to these people more than anyone. All of this of course is just my opinion. Trying to be unbias.
Meta hutcheson Posted September 6, 2006 Meta Posted September 6, 2006 I believe that what you say about the stealth affiliates is true. I say that there is no such thing as "editor abuse" -- it is all "webmaster abuse": even though some webmasters obtain editing privileges by deceit for malicious purposes, they are still abusive webmasters. And sometimes editors are fooled: "you can fool some of the editors for awhile," but you can't fool all of the editors forever. So, yes, sometimes the editor is just another innocent victim of the webmaster deceit. And yes, we get some excellent help from people ratting out their competitors. There is nothing that gets quicker attention than help tracking down webmaster abuse already in the directory. Again, you'd be surprised how much we catch without help. But help makes a big difference. My point is that many of the claims of "abuse" boil down to "the editor hasn't listed my site" -- when in fact it would have been abuse TO list it. Surprisingly few allegations of abuse include actual specifications of specific sites that were added and shouldn't have been. (The people who DO find those sites, bless their hearts, usually give us the benefit of the doubt ... and I try to return it.)
Budalata Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 I'm not sure why you do not know this but DMOZ does manipulate Google. A listing here means a higher ranking than not being listed, AND it has been proven that it will get your site indexed faster when its first released. Its a real shot of PR. I dont want to discuss too much, just tell me please HOW HIGHER ranking you expect to obtain after listing in DMOZ? May be six? Seven ? "indexed faster"... before three/3/ months i create entirely new cat in DMOZ and there are a lot of sites WITHOUT PR there...and still thay dont have PR; if we are talking about displaying results in Google - please, believe me, if the site is written as it has to be, Google will indexed it immediately. Let me tell you something - Google knows better than any webmaster how worth it site is, and what there is in this site...you can spent some time viewing Google AdSense Preview Tool, and you will realize this. Concerning our edits in ODP - till we all are humans, there will be also cheaters, and persons expecting listing in ODP to solve their problems.
chaz7979 Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 I dont want to discuss too much, just tell me please HOW HIGHER ranking you expect to obtain after listing in DMOZ? May be six? Seven ? "indexed faster"... before three/3/ months i create entirely new cat in DMOZ and there are a lot of sites WITHOUT PR there...and still thay dont have PR; if we are talking about displaying results in Google - please, believe me, if the site is written as it has to be, Google will indexed it immediately. Let me tell you something - Google knows better than any webmaster how worth it site is, and what there is in this site...you can spent some time viewing Google AdSense Preview Tool, and you will realize this. Concerning our edits in ODP - till we all are humans, there will be also cheaters, and persons expecting listing in ODP to solve their problems. Much higher. Not as high as it use to from what I can see. But still much higher. You dont see the PR because even though google knows you have a link from DMOZ or any trusted site it doesnt instantly give you the PR. Just like it doesnt instantly update the SERP's when you add a new SEO improvement. I cant believe you...I want to, but I cant. There are reasons why some sites are indexed in days and others take months. I am not saying DMOZ is the only way. But lets say you are a new webmaster with no affiliations and no inbound links. Google will not just index your site. Please believe me. Now if that new webmaster can get a link in DMOZ his site will be in the index in days. I do think google is good at knowing the worth of a site. I also think its smart that they google factors in a link at the ODP to calculate that worth. That being said, if they believe that the human edited dir makes a difference, they should drop the ODP and start their own. That is neither here nor their.
Budalata Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 What you believe, or not - is entirely your job You can look at this Google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=knowandcan There is a list of domains, and only one of them is a word with meaning in English. Every one domain name is indexed in Google search. The only external links are to HTML, CSS and the company which posses them /also not included in ODP/ If you have problems with indexing with your sites in Google, try to find information about Google penalties. But this forum is not the right place of discussing such a things. Regards P.S i am newbie in ODP and this is my private opinion.
Recommended Posts