DMOZ Corrupt???

[Chris Boggs]

Site Pro news featured a very interesting article by Jim Hedger on its home page 5/30 that brings up a disturbing question...are DMOZ listings "for sale" if you contact the right editor? Article now available here (http://news.stepforth.com/2005-news/May25-05.html).

I guess this is probably not going to draw any admissions of wrong-doing by DMOZ or any of its editors, or any tell-all confessions by site owners/SEO's that have paid for listings. But it is worth a discussion. Could this be true? Can I buy quicker listings for my site/client sites? If so, please contact me via IM... :D

I just added a poll to this...be assured that your responses are confidential.

(Note in case the Article moves I will regularly update the link above)

[St0n3y]

Well, I certainly don't have any experience with DMOZ being "corrupt", but I do think they need to manage their "volunteers" better. But that's another conversation all together.

[randfish]

I got several "offers" in my last editing position and have known and known of far too many editors who owned sites in their categories or were in cahoots with those who did. One particular incident a couple years ago from the category editor a level above me made me realize that DMOZ was a failed idea on the whole - corrupt and without a system in place to monitor fairness, accuracy or accountability.

A noble idea with poor implementation. It's strange how money can actually reduce corruption - look at Yahoo!'s directory or UncovertheNet or BlueFind - completely fair, without bias and very responsive to the people for whom they provide a service.

[projectphp]

Really? Wow. No one ever offered me a cent... I am not sure whether to feel hurt, uncared for or what ;)

Personally, I think "corrupt" is a word that is hard to justify, but there are certainly many instances of dodgy dealings. And it isn't just getting listed, it is the listings themselves that are dodgy.

I am often iffy on listings. How on Earth this listing: <snip> got in is beyond me. Where is <snip> mentioned anywhere on the site? The only mention I found is <snipped example> which pulls from DMOZ's listing. That seems like anchor text fiddling to me, and I think that is pretty rife in general, especially in industries that are cluey to its power.

IMHO though, it is a bit unfair to say DMOZ is corrupt. Like real life v1.0, blaiming an organisation for the actions of a few individual editors is harsh. Especially when, unlike say Enron, the culture of the ODP is certainly not corrupt. There is no hidden agenda in which this dodgy stuff is promoted in private, while maintaining a public facade. AFAIK, the guidelines, both written and discussed, and the commitment of many metas is excellent and on topic. They can't be expected to police EVERY listing (that is what editors sign up to do) and they do a pretty good job.

The question of whether they have the right model to cope, however, is an interesting one, and a question many have fed off and used to sell and promote their own directories (Peter D take a bow).

<added>Just remembered: dodgy is "Colony" specific and needs a definition (http://www.stensrude.com/Oz.html#dodgy).</added>

[nuthin]

you are right, that listing you mentioned is right off.
why didn't the editor that listed that use <snip> as the title?
not being a dmoz editor at all, but the Inc. I don't think is needed either?

obviously someone fiddled around with that listing and should be discharged from there position as an editor.

i'm sure we can list alot of other examples too.

but unlikely anything will happen.

so i will just go back into my corner. :)

[robwatts]

Could DMOZ be corrupt? Sorry Chris, I don't think this is a good question really.

'Could' is far too broad a word in this context.

You could substitute DMOZ with practically any other name on the planet. Could Coca Cola or George Bush or Tony Blair or Chirac or Putin be corrupt? All of which, without irrefutable evidence to the contrary should be answered with the 'maybe' answer.

This thread could quite easily just tail off into another anti DMOZ thread.

2 cents

[Genie]

How on Earth this listing: [url]<snipped outing>mentioned anywhere on the site?
If you take a look at that site in the Internet Archive, you will see that at the time of listing in the ODP, the business was trading as <snipped title>
The listing has now been amended (though the change will not show up on the public side immediately.) Btw there is a thread in RZ for pointing out quality control issues, and similar internal threads.

[Genie]

Back to the thread topic. I have listed about 30,000 sites and no-one has offered me a sou. But then I don't edit in the big-money categories that attract the most cut-throat competition and desperate webmasters.

The Open Directory is too big and varied to label with one word - pure or corrupt. An editor in - let's say - French libraries, who is peacefully listing library sites that he finds for himself, is a different creature from the Adult webmaster who becomes an editor in order to promote his sites. Each one (judging others by himself) may imagine that all editors have the same motives as himself. But that is a false vision.

What I can say is that there is no institutionalised corruption. The rules bar bribe-taking and editors caught doing it will be removed. Webmasters caught offering bribes will have their sites banned. So anyone naive enough to believe the more lurid propaganda and act on it could be in for a nasty shock.

[Jorge]

Not using a DMOZ guideline title does not necessarily imply that there is foul play . My personal experience with that was that the particular editor in my field simply did not follow DMOZ guidelines to my advantage. I saw that my competitors were all listed with great anchor texts in the title. So I submitted mine with another set of keywords and whoever is in charge there set me right up without asking for a penny and in a matter of days. I didn't complain ...

[Genie]

It shouldn't happen Jorge, but it does. Many, many webmasters submit titles laden with keywords for the anchor text benefit. Senior editors will spot this and fix the title as per Guidelines. (It should be the business name for a commercial site.) But less experienced editors sometimes let these titles through.

Clearly you are happy with the end result in your case! But anyone can report at RZ a listing that doesn't meet Guidelines.

[Chris Boggs]

Sorry Chris, I don't think this is a good question really.

'Could' is far too broad a word in this context.

You could substitute DMOZ with practically any other name on the planet. Could Coca Cola or George Bush or Tony Blair or Chirac or Putin be corrupt? All of which, without irrefutable evidence to the contrary should be answered with the 'maybe' answer.

This thread could quite easily just tail off into another anti DMOZ thread.

2 cents

I felt the same way when I initially posted it...but I feel that this topic merits discussion. We all know that Coke, Blair, and Putin are not corrupt :p .

Thanks for the comment, which I hope will act as a warning that this topic is not meant to be a DMOZ bashing, but instead a way for people to admit/refute corruption within a seemingly out of control system...

[Genie]

Frankly this topic has been done to death over and over on forum after forum. Is anything new likely to emerge from this thread?

Editors have said again and again that abuse of the directory is sadly possible. Editors are being removed for it all the time. At any given moment there are likely to be a few still getting away with it, until nemesis catches up with them. So some of your members should be able to quote a case or two.

But tarring all editors with the same brush is both insulting and irresponsible. It could lead unsuspecting webmasters to attempt bribery, to their harm. Obviously you are aware that any webmaster who states here that his/her sites were listed as a result of a bribe will see those sites rapidly removed from the directory for good. That is why you are offering the anonymous poll.

[robwatts]

Hi Chris

I wouldn't argue with the right to discuss things and agree that in a general sense there is no real harm to be had from fathoming peoples beliefs and perceptions. I guess I honed in to the poll question itself, rather than the wider topic, apologies for missing the plot there ;), twas early and I'd drank no tea :)

One of the problems in all this is that its easy for people to make assumptions about what they perceive to be happening behind closed doors, but in most cases very very difficult to actually prove them or show them to be reality. One further question arising is why do these perceptions exist? Are they borne of a multitude of examples that lead people to make reasonable assumptions or are they created by a minority of vocal individuals wielding blunt axes?

One to watch though, lets hope this thread can stay on track. Although past evidence on these types of threads, would suggest otherwise!

[Jorge]

I don't think there is anything wrong with going back to talking DMOZ once again...even if it does turn into DMOZ bashing. It's still one of our greatest frustrations, and the fact that there could be corrupt editors makes it an important subject. Maybe this thread will get people to make sure all fishy DMOZ listings get reported. Some will be just editorial mistakes, but some of the less ethical editors will get busted.

[krisval]

I take the site by Ana Thema with a grain of salt. This could just be a person who has a vendetta. Corruption is a strong word. I do know an ex editor who was kicked out for listing his site in multiple categories and trying to spam it. All of his sites were removed as well. So I am sure this sort of thing happens where someone is not caught. I do think that keeping things so secretive at the ODP helps to fuel the fire for accusations.

Regarding the article, I think it would have been more responsible to quote verifiable sources rather than speculation and hearsay.
.

[Jorge]

How about not even considering if a listing is caused by corruption. Let's assume it is an editorial mistake and make sure the possible error is corrected, such as duplicated listings and incorrect titles.

[massa]

> DMOZ Corrupt???<

DUUUHHHHH !

[mcanerin]

First off - I don't think DMOZ is corrupt, but I'll allow that some DMOZ editors may be.

Second, so far most of the comments have revolved around getting sites listed that should not be.

The flip side to this are editors that are not listing sites that compete against them or their friends, even if they should be.

From what I've seen, this is far more common. It's easy to hide this behavior under the guise of "chosing the best sites", whereas when you include a site, that choice is open to review. Not including a site that should be included is far more insidious, since it's difficult to detect and monitor, and you can always use the excuse that you didn't see it, or are too busy, etc.

Every time I hear of an editor ignoring the submitted sites list and "going out to get quality links from the web" I can't help but wonder whether the motive is to get quality links, or to avoid competition.

Do I think that DMOZ editors in general do this? No.

Do I think it's a lot more common than people think? Yes.

I know several people who became DMOZ editors for the sole purpose of making sure that their competitors did not get in. They justified this to themselves because, in their opinion, their competitors had "bad sites". They may even be right. In some categories almost every listing is a "bad site" if you look at them critically enough. This issue is being hyper critical of sites that are competitors of yourself or people you know, and looking at sites that are friendly through rose-tinted glasses.

There is no real way to stop this given the current setup, IMO. It's extremely difficult to distinguish between this type of corruption and simply "being picky" without doing an investigation that would be outside of the scope of available resources.

The nature of volunteers is that they do the job for THEIR OWN reasons, not the organizations. If you take someone who did not care particularly about the subject, but cared about the quality of their work, and then paid them to do the work, you would probably get better results.

Since that's not likely to happen, I guess that kind of finishes this post. :(

My opinion,

Ian

[semanticist]

I don't think there's any systemic, widespread corruption in DMOZ, but the popularity of the Corrupt DMOZ Editor does illustrate that DMOZ has an image problem with legitimate webmasters, not to mention a few (at least) bad apples. The closing of the RZ inquiry section didn't help. I would gladly pay a fee simply for consideration, if it meant nothing else than a prompt decision and reply to my submissions.

I made an offhand reference to the Corrupt DMOZ Editor in a recent (5/18) blog post, and Ana Thema left a comment on 5/30 that said to "expect a bigger bombshell soon." I hope it's something more substantial than a few editors tossing sarcastic comments back and forth, but we'll see.

[andrewgoodman]

It's strange how money can actually reduce corruption -.
Indeed, a well-known fact based on studies observing the behavior of members of the civil service, such as police, health inspectors, urban planners, and low-level functionaries of every stripe, around the globe, for the past century or so. If there are professional memberships and fair pay involved, corruption drops. In nations where the culture is to underpay the civil servants and let them take bribes, they take the bribes and the quality of work suffers.

This does not have to mean that everyone is on the take. Some do indeed have noble intentions. But it just stands to reason that there are two types of gatekeepers & officials in the world. Those formally paid and trained, and those who are, relative to them, unprofessional in the strict sense of the word.

[krisval]

If the alligations of paid placements is true and can be proved. This is a very big if because I have not seen a known editor or a webmaster who can corroberate, BUT...

This is the statement from the social contract.

"We promise to keep the distribution of ODP data, and the submission process to this data, entirely free."

I would think that AOL should start getting concerned about these allegations at this point. They have a big bank account and if the allegations are true and they knowingly do nothing about it, they are violating their contract with the public. This as you know could lead to a lawsuit. I am very surprised knowing how lawyers brains work that they have not issued a statement refuting these claims directly.....Maybe because DMOZ is just a lost stepchild. If I were them, I would definitely protect myself.

[Jill Whalen]

Webmasters caught offering bribes will have their sites banned.

Banned if you do, and (essentially) banned if you don't.

[kctipton]

Jill -- what??

Paying and not paying = a ban? I'm stunned to see you of all people say that. Who do you know who thinks they've been banned for not paying?

[shor]

From what I've seen, this is far more common. It's easy to hide this behavior under the guise of "chosing the best sites", whereas when you include a site, that choice is open to review. Not including a site that should be included is far more insidious, since it's difficult to detect and monitor, and you can always use the excuse that you didn't see it, or are too busy, etc.


I see this a lot too, and the DMOZ editors who are responsible are far more wily than I imagined. I've seen categories where the user's own company is given full and expansive descriptions filled with industry keywords while all the major competitors are given copy devoid of any descriptive KWs. Nefarious indeed. And attempting to get these situations rectified doesn't justify the time and resources required - editors can just choose to ignore you or delay you with BS emails.

P.S. Corrupt DMOZ Editor Blog (http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/) has also just updated with a May 30 entry :)

[Jill Whalen]

Paying and not paying = a ban? I'm stunned to see you of all people say that. Who do you know who thinks they've been banned for not paying?

Sorry, it was supposed to be a play on words (damned if you do...).

Basically what I meant though was since you generally can't get sites listed these days anyway, a ban from DMOZ really doesn't mean anything, does it?

[Quadrille]

since you generally can't get sites listed these days anyway, a ban from DMOZ really doesn't mean anything, does it?It depends on the site; last I looked, ODP was still adding new sites, and there's certainly been no announcement of closure.

It all depends who you believe, I guess. :rolleyes:

And a ban from ODP is not the end of the world (submit, forget and move on, is the sensible mantra), but a ban could tell an SEO something important about their practice.

[kctipton]

you generally can't get sites listed these days anyway

You can. I list them often. Others do the same.

[Connie]

Are all Lawyers corrupt? Are all Politicians corrupt? I don't think so but that is the reputation those industries have. Are some DMOZ editors corrupt? Probably. Any time you have a large organization you are going to get some bad apples. Does the Bar, Political Parties, and DMOZ try to deal with the bad apples? I think so. Do they or will they ever catch all probably not.

Yes DMOZ is still listing sites. DMOZ is not dead. DMOZ may not meet everyones expectations but I guess that's tough. What I call a fact of life.
Fortunately I learned a 1 1/2 ago or so. Submit your site to DMOZ. If it get listed fine. If it doesn't get listed fine. It's not the end of the world not to be listed in DMOZ.

What I wonder is if all this supposed corruption can be proved why the sue type attorneys have not started filling lawsuits. If corruption can be proven there might be a case. I don't think AOL is worried in the least.

[Jill Whalen]

You can. I list them often. Others do the same.

That's great. Too bad more of the editors weren't like you!

Personally, I could care less. I don't usually even bother to submit any more because I just assume it won't get in. I do have one submission pending in there because the client's site was such a good one that I was sure DMOZ would be anxious to add it. But it's been a few months and nothing, so I'm definitely not holding my breath.

[Genie]

Jill - over the last couple of months I have listed about 2,000 sites. I think it's a safe bet that not one of them belonged to a client or yours or even anybody you know.

Firstly they were mainly not English-language sites. Some areas of World remain rather under-developed, so I chose to help out there as best I can.

Secondly I gave priority to local government, school, library, hospital, firefighter and other public service sites, including official tourist offices and consumer advice bodies. I also listed sites of political parties, public utilities, scout and other youth groups, theatres, environmental pressure groups, descriptions of particular places, embassies, citizen's advice bureaux, sites on specific diseases, information for pet-owners, recipes and hordes more non-commercial sites. I didn't miss out commercial sites altogether. In fact I listed hundreds of them, giving priority to local newspapers and radio. But I kept in mind that:

1. The great majority of searchers are looking for information, not products/services. (80% was the last estimate I saw. )
2. Non-commercial/official sites are often not submitted to us. So to get the balance right for the user, we have to work a bit harder to find and list them.

I don't suppose that any of that is a comfort to your client. But at least you have a different angle on it. Oh those hopelessly idealistic editors! :D

[Jill Whalen]

Perhaps the ODP should officially go non-commercial then?

[Genie]

That would suit me Jill. Given that we only have so many editors and the web is vast, I'd prefer the ODP to focus on non-commercial areas.

Commercial sites can pay for listing in commercial directories. That process seems to work pretty well. OK there have been a lot of complaints when prices go up and/or change to annual from once-off, but market forces operate. If one directory charges too much for the benefit they give, folk will go to another one. And there will always be another one. It's the usual supply-and-demand thing.

Volunteers generally step in where market forces fail to deliver a social good. Listing non-commercial sites falls in that category.

However there is no current prospect of the Open Directory excluding commercial sites. And I don't honestly expect it ever to happen. It was created as a general directory. It would take an internal earthquake to change that. :D

[mcanerin]

Firstly they were mainly not English-language sites. Some areas of World remain rather under-developed, so I chose to help out there as best I can.

Secondly I gave priority to local government, school, library, hospital, firefighter and other public service sites, including official tourist offices and consumer advice bodies. I also listed sites of political parties, public utilities, scout and other youth groups, theatres, environmental pressure groups, descriptions of particular places, embassies, citizen's advice bureaux, sites on specific diseases, information for pet-owners, recipes and hordes more non-commercial sites. I didn't miss out commercial sites altogether. In fact I listed hundreds of them, giving priority to local newspapers and radio. But I kept in mind that:

1. The great majority of searchers are looking for information, not products/services. (80% was the last estimate I saw. )
2. Non-commercial/official sites are often not submitted to us. So to get the balance right for the user, we have to work a bit harder to find and list them.


Thank you for what is probably the most succinct and genuinely helpful description of a good editor in action I've seen yet. No arrogance, no attitude, no defensiveness - just good ol' common sense and respect for the real users.

Keep up the good work! :)

Ian

[seomike]

Corrupt.... Maybe, Overworked Absolutely. When all you get out of the deal is a freaking "Editor" title and a $h!t load of work plopped on your plate what do you expect? Maybe if being an editor came with benefits it would be worth it. You know Like the "Stone Cutters" Simpson episode LOL you get a cool encrypto ring that works on soda machines and a sweet parking spot at work, that type of thing.

[krisval]

7 people so far have said that they have and/or can buy links. I know I wo't get a response from this because you may not want to go public, but if you were one of the 7, can you detail exactly what happened? Without naming editors, can you describe the process? How many sites did you get listed? How much did it cost you? Did you need to do a favor in return.

....well, it is worth a shot:)

[massa]

No one in their right mind is going to respond openly Krisval. Nor should they. It's certainly a valid question but I can't imagine anyone wanting to give specifics for a number of reasons. Reasons ranging from the nice-guy-not-wanting-to-get-anyone-in-trouble all the way to the, what?! and-lose-my-edge?

I will only say that, based on my personal experience, I believe pay-for-play happens. It can happen for as little as a link. It usually happens for $100 to $150 or so. It happens at the highest levels and enough people know it happens that it makes me question the motives of those who are most adamant about denying it or downplaying it's impact. It may also lend some insight into why some are so quick to respond to any and all complaints about the org, almost instantly,(kind makes it looks like someone is watching close for negative posts huh?), in an organized fashion and using the same pat answers over and over. Maybe there is something more at stake than just the great desire to help everyone for free. Too bad SEMPO can't hire ODP's PR department. If they had one of course. ;)

To me, it is pointless to even waste time discussing whether or not it happens in terms of editors simply favoring their own sites and intentionally disallowing competitors sites.

I don't see one form of abuse of power any less corrupt than the other. It's the old joke about the man asking a good looking woman at a party if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. In the wink of an eye, the woman agrees. The man then says, "Ok, how about $20?" The woman acts deeply offended and asks, "just what do you think I am?" To which the man replies, "we've already established what you are, now we're just negotiating price."

Ok, that should stir up enough trouble for this week. I truly enjoy posting here and wish I had more time as I have a great deal of respect for most of the members. I've been happy getting to contribute to a few threads this past few days but alas, it's back to the old grindstone for me. Hope to be back soon.

[krisval]

No one in their right mind is going to respond openly Krisval. Nor should they.
True they won't. (nor should they - don't necessarily agree) Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't do it myself and I really don't expect anyone else to do it in thsi forum, but IMO this allegation of corruption by specific editors is completely unproven. The evidence is circumstantial at best. This person Ana Thema could just be making all of this up.

DMOZ has its haters and lovers. I am in between. I like the concept, but dislike the way in which certain (NOT ALL) editors review sites and project a poor image to the public. That being said, I think it is very unfair to accuse without proof...real proof. I am specifically referring to the allegation that a person can buy their way in.

How do you defend it? It is like the old witch hunts in Salem. We are talking about a Blogger with a fake name and a private whois registration. Where is the corroberation? If anyone has it, I would definitely like to see it.

If it can be proven that there are editors actively accepting bribes, they should seriously consider what they are doing. There could be serious consequences - A lot more serious than just getting their listings removed and editorial priveleges revoked.

[Chris Boggs]

This conversation seems to be going along in a remarkably civil manner...kudos to all those involved!

Anyway, I just noticed that there are now 8 "Yes" votes. If people are not simply DMOZ bashing, that is certainly an astonishing number. I agree that it would be nice (but very unlikely) to have someone step up on the record and claim they purchased/sold placement on the directory. This anonymous blogger that has been described as the source certainly can't stay away for too long. Of course Felt certainly remained "Deep Throat" for a long time. :p

I was looking at the blog in question and of course there is no way to leave a comment. Is this a person with a grudge? Judging from a previous post (http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/2004/12/how-to-bribe-dmoz-editor.html), he/she is certainly fairly "opinionated" about the process of bribing. Is this the only "source" anyone has found? I am starting to believe that this whole thing may have been started by someone with a grudge. Oh well...guess I'll continue to wait for the never-to-come proof.

BTW, I like DMOZ and what it stands for. perhaps it should become completely non-commercial to avoid any accusations like this in the future.

[randfish]

krisval - I was (and am) an editor at DMOZ and have gotten bribe requests. I never said yes, but since it happened more than once, I have to assume other DMOZ editors get it too.

I was also booted from DMOZ a while ago (under one of my editor names) after I helped some SEOs get their sites listed in DMOZ against regulations. An event with my category editor led me to lose all faith in DMOZ and decide to go rogue, although, in my defense, I never listed or suggested a site that I thought was of poor quality or betrayed DMOZ's relationship with its users.

Specifically, the offers I got were for $150, $100 and $75 respectively (nice distribution I thought). I know another editor who was offered $250!

The process was once a Paypal payment, which I sent back and twice e-mails promising funds.

Hope that helps - perhaps others will do likewise.

[andrewgoodman]

Jill -- what??

Paying and not paying = a ban? I'm stunned to see you of all people say that. Who do you know who thinks they've been banned for not paying?
K.C. Tipton, are you the chap who wrote me personally on my third rejection as a dmoz editor to tell me that the thinking was it wouldn't be a good idea to accept my application because I'd been openly critical of dmoz? Yay! Dmoz suppresses all dissent!

Anyway, I am not sure what Jill's point is, but I'm guessing it's something about the utter lack of transparency and procedure, so that the effort of submitting a site for a client so often goes unrewarded. There is no way to know if the site will be accepted in two weeks, eight weeks, sixteen weeks, three hundred weeks, or never. And no procedure for finding out, other than going to some strange workaround site called Resource Zone. That's unprofessional.

Now would be your cue to talk about how hard it is to deal with the backlog of submitted sites. Absolutely. There is no incentive within dmoz to deal with backlogs in a timely, fair, or efficient manner.

[andrewgoodman]

Perhaps the ODP should officially go non-commercial then?
Quit it Jill, you're making too much sense. :D

[Genie]

And no procedure for finding out, other than going to some strange workaround site called Resource Zone.
RZ recently stopped giving site submission status checks.

Just a point of information.

[krisval]

I was (and am) an editor at DMOZ and have gotten bribe requests. I never said yes, but since it happened more than once, I have to assume other DMOZ editors get it too.

Yikes! Where there is smoke there is fire. Thanks for sharing this!!!

[AnaThema]

Too many DMOZ editors have the mistaken notion that I am anti-DMOZ, and leave comments with a liberal use of obscenities.

In my last post I published some screenshots of an internal Editors Only thread at DMOZ that was hundreds of posts long. Here is a typical comment:

so what if the editors talk about sites in their forum. What exactly are they supposed to talk about?

Talking about sites is one thing, but having a big laugh at the expense of ordinary webmasters who want a listing is just plain corrupt.

Yes, I screw with competitors, but that's business. Selling submissions is business. Everything is up for grabs, including admission to DMOZ.

[krisval]

Ana Thema,

Wow. Straight from the horses mouth. I just have one request to prove that this is you and not someone using your handle. Could you ad some text to your corruptdmozeditor site like "see my posts on Searchenginewatch"?

[Chris Boggs]

This thread is about alleged corruption at DMOZ. If you are concerned with insulting or defending the management, please do so in another thread.
thanks!

I agree with krisval that it would be nice to know that the "real AnaThema" is who posted.

Thanks again.

[AnaThema]

http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/

Scroll down.

[mcanerin]

Scroll down.

Got it - thanks AnaThema! Welcome to the SEW Forums. I'm sure a few people will have a few questions..... ;)

Ian

[bobmaxim]

That much is probably true. Interesting that Ana does not allow comments. Ana Thema = Fake, Hoax, with axe to grind. Probably are DMOZ editors that will accept money, but if push came to shove and I had to pay for a directory listing, we all know there are plenty of them that are set up to accept money.

[cbp]

FINALLY ---- in all my time as an editor, I have NEVER been offered a bribe .... just now got the first one!!!! (....its kinda exciting :D ).... now I am off to see what I can do about getting the site banned :rolleyes: ... serves them right for believing all the stories about DMOZ being corrupt and needing to offer a bribe to get listed. (BTW - I won''t try and take the money)

[mcanerin]

:D So if I offer to bribe someone to list my competitors I could get them banned? Eeeexxcceeeennntttt.....!

"scuse me, I have to go make a new competition list..... ;)

Of course, I wouldn't actually do that. But it's one possible danger, and I know people who *would*. Same thinking as submitting your competition to FFA's in hopes that they would get banned. It doesn't work with Google, and should not work with ODP.

But I agree that now that people think corruption is rampant in DMOZ there is an increased liklyhood of bribe offers (and possibly editors who may now take bribes where they would not before "since everyone is doing it").

In this manner, this thread has been destructive and negative. However, I beleive that by bringing the issue into the open is the only way to truly deal with it, and to make adjustments and policies accordingly.

It's like M$ announcing a new vulnerability (or someone doing it for them). Without preparation, the problem then goes from a small group of hackers that know about the exploit to a very large group of wannabe's that now want to try it. In the short term, the announcement is a bad thing.

But in the long term, the problem gets fixed and people are able to guard against it because they know about it.

There is an old saying in the practice of law: "Justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done". It's not enough to quietly do the right thing behind the scenes when the public thinks the wrong thing is going on. Openness breeds faith (warts and all).

If there are corrupt editors, then they should be rooted out, not swept under a rug or called a "hoax". That only serves to help the corruption along.

Even the best of organizations get bad apples in them. It doesn't mean the organization is bad, it means that it's big - that's all. The only thing to be concerned about is if nothing is done about it, IMO.

Cheers,

Ian

[petertdavis]

One of the signs of a corrupt system is its inability to accept criticism. I see that I'm not the only vicitim of this type of corruption here. A couple years back, I applied and was accepted at ODP to edit a fairly insignificant category, about coin collecting. I'm also a moderator at Sitepoint's forums.

One day at Sitepoint we got into a discussion about the ODP's policy regarding affiliate links on a site. I made a post stating that I believed that some ODP editors are overly zealous in banning sites that have affiliate links, and that if a site was good enough to be listed if it did not have any affiliate links, that it should still be good enough to be listed if they added affiliate links. Mr. Tipton saw that post, and promptly had me banned from the ODP.

Now, I personally wouldn't even consider that a high criticism of ODP policy. I still today think it makes sense. If a site is good enough to be listed, what should it matter if they earn revenue using affiliate programs, or not? I believe that what happened to me, and the incident that Mr. Goodman mentioned are evidence that the ODP is corrupted at the highest levels. The inability to deal with even the most simple criticism is very telling, in my opinion. It really shows the unwillingness of the ODP to work toward the kind of change that would help it to regain its rightful place on the web.

[krisval]

Even the best of organizations get bad apples in them. It doesn't mean the organization is bad, it means that it's big - that's all.

I agree with that. It happens all the time, but the test for the organization is how it deals with the issue. If nothing is done openly, then you can make some assumptions about the integrity of the organization. I myself, was not convinced that this was going on until the posts from editors in this forum who said that they at least received bribe requests. If the requests are going on, then surely some people including the infamous Ana Thema are taking the money.

IMO, this is a very big issue in terms of the ODP's overall mission and reputation, not to mention potential legal issues that could come to fruition against both corrupt editors or Netscape itself. We will see if anything is done publicly. As mentioned previously, If I were AOL/Netscape I wouldn't leave this sort of thing up to volunteers to resolve, I would have a corporate person step in to protect my interests.

[Chris Boggs]

http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/

Scroll down.

Thanks AnaThema...as Ian said, I am curious to see some of your answers defending this practice.

It seems from cbp's last post that some DMOZ editors could be on the way to increasing their net worth thanks to all the commotion you and Hedger have stirred-up :p

[macdesign]

I wonder why everyone believes what they see on the internet.

1. Why do you assume that the author of the corrupt site is in fact a current editor. Nothing has been posted that proves that. Most likely a ex-editor who was kicked out. There is also in indication the whole site is actually an attempt to get the names of webmasters who are willing to make a bribe and pubclicize who they are.

2. Why assume that the AnaThema who posts here is the same person. Anyone can sign up here with any name. Could be a real odp editor playing games with you.

3. We have a kctipton posting in this thread - who knows if it's the same person as the one who has that editor name? This whole subject is now becoming a game of smoke and mirrors since now www.kctipton.com has been registered and redirects to the corrupt blog. Anyone who goes to that much trouble is overly obsessed with thier hatred DMOZ and is not someone to be trusted with any "facts" that they give out.

[PhilC]

I am not sure what Jill's point isMy understanding of Jill's post (initial writing) was that, if a site is not going to be listed, it is effectively banned, so what's the difference between that and getting banned for offering a bribe - and she was correct, imo - or it's a perfectly valid view.

K.C. Tipton, are you the chap who wrote me personally on my third rejection as a dmoz editor to tell me that the thinking was it wouldn't be a good idea to accept my application because I'd been openly critical of dmoz?That tickled me, because it was K.C. Tipton who accepted my editor application at a time when I was being openly critical of DMOZ in a long thread that I started for that purpose at Resource Zone. And the application was just an experiment.

DMOZ couldn't go all non-commercial, or it wouldn't be a good directory.

[PhilC]

I've just read everything on Ana Thema's blog and, to be absolutely honest, the whole things reads like a load of bs. So he found a couple of posts in the Penguin Cafe - so what? He didn't show us the rest of the threads and who knows what was in them, or even what the submissions were about. The stuff about how he must pay someone above him a cut of everything he takes is just a load of codswallop. I would normally add "imo" but I really don't think it's necessary this time.

[mcanerin]

I've just read everything on Ana Thema's blog and, to be absolutely honest, the whole things reads like a load of bs.

Good - I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that. It's seems a little... out there. More attitude than substance.

The problem with this whole mess is that this isn't a court of law, there is no enforcement to actually identify yourself or provide real proof, and we have to take the word of people who by their own admission are corrupt. Not the best start.

I don't doubt that there is corruption - statistically in the US (for example) 1 out of every 7 people steals from their workplace (ie: is corrupt). Applied to 68,375 editors that's almost 9800 potentially corrupt editors.

This isn't a valid statisitic by any means (there are so many differences and variables I'm not sure I could list them all), and is very much an "apples to oranges" type of scenario, but the direction isn't promising - lots of people usually results in lots of bad apples, regardless of the actual numbers and details.

But, in response to other posts - a lack of knowledge does NOT result in a valid conclusion - either for or against. The fact that we are missing "real" proof of corruption does not mean it does not exist, any more than the fact that we are missing "real" proof of a LACK of corruption results in the assumption that there isn't any.

The fact that you don't trust the messenger doesn't mean the message isn't accurate - it just means you have to verify it independently.

Ian

[KyleTech]

There’s an adage that goes something like “You can’t please everyone all of the time” and this applies to Dmoz as it does to any customer facing company, site, or search engine . The internet is a very informal medium which gives anyone the ability to ‘shout from the rooftops’. In no other industry do disgruntled customers have such a forum (the irony isn’t lost) for airing their grievances. With every tale, there are two sides and I’ve not read a single complaint about the directory that is one hundred percent accurate in terms of what actually happened. We’re only human and prone to both making mistakes and exaggerating the truth to make a story more passionate and interesting. Combine both of these and you have a captive audience.

Some of the most successful online businesses have their very own ‘hate’ sites campaigning to ‘take them down’ or tell everyone the ‘real truth’. I think that anyone who blindly accepts a version of events without objectively considering another point of view or seeking out proof is only interested in spreading salacious gossip. Of course, the internet is full of people who will gleefully accept a story if it appeals to them and spread it further.

We’re not perfect and we’ve made some mistakes but we’ve always tried our very best for our submitters and always approach any complaint with professionalism and objectiveness. We’ve definitely learned from these mistakes and introduced new policies and training to ensure they’re not repeated. To me, the real value of our organization is how we deal with our mistakes and problems not how few we make.

We do have a lot of feedback from our submitters. We invite their feedback in the resource zone fora and we also have a way to report abuse anonymously. We receive thousands of useful and helpful comments a week and we’re listening intently as we redesign the directory and it's rules/taxonomy.

Thankfully the overwhelming majority of our users are very satisfied with our services and continue to submit their sites and volunteer to be editors.

[kctipton]

it was K.C. Tipton who accepted my editor application

I don't recall one way or the other most any person's name I accepted or not over the years. I've accepted lots of folks, rejected more, and removed for abuse a number of people I accepted. But, what's that got to do with this?

[macdesign]

Let me point out something else. In order to be able to take a bribe to list a site that could go anywhere, you have to be able to edit any category in DMOZ and/or to have multiple editing accoutns all at top levels .There are only a few hundred editors who could do that, those editors got that kind of privilege by a lot of hard work. No one is going to spend all that time editing (and doing good quality editing) just to grab a few hundred dollars in bribes here and there. It's not cost effective and the profile of a good editor does not match the profile of a rogue editor.

Look carefully at those screen shots in the blog - they are from 2001 and 2003 - why not from 2005?

As a kid I always wondered how McCarthy got into power. I guess if you repeat mindless drivel enough it gets believed.

(And for the record, I'm not denying there are corrupt editors, I've found some and they are gone. I'm sure there are more. But calling the whole of DMOZ corrupt by giving credence to this blog is irresponsible reporting, and insulting to many thousands who have no ulterior motives.)

[KyleTech]

I ain't going to lie to yall, there are SOME corrupt editors. That DOES NOT mean the entire directory is corrupt though. I am not corrupt. I would never take a bribe for a listing. It's completely wrong and inconcievable.

I have been an ODP editor since late 2003. I love every minute of it. I do not see the odp as corrupt. I would however like to put the people whom make these anti-dmoz blogs away.

[petertdavis]

There are other forms of corruption than just bribe taking.

[PhilC]

It seems to me that the genral attitude in this thread is that, if there are editors who take money to list sites in DMOZ, they are few and far between - as might be expected in any similar organisation. There doesn't seem to be a groundswell of people saying that DMOZ is corrupt, or even suggesting it.

The comparitively high number of votes for the second option of the poll does surprise me though, and I wonder who voted for it. Genuine? I suspect not, but it's only my suspicion.

[KyleTech]

I should hope not! Dmoz is one of the best search engines in the world.

[hassleback]

The ODP didn't invent conflict of interest. It occurs in the real world every day, and honest people have to learn to cope with it. Every week thousands of church treasurers collect millions of dollars, and account for it faithfully. Of the dozens of U.S. presidents elected, most neither stole the silverware nor sexually assaulted the help. (Only one did both, IIRC.)

But for many editors there is no conflict of interest. I joined the ODP because I had some content that had been very difficult for me to find, and I wanted to make it more accessible. f I can find the content on the web, I link to it. If I can't find it, I scan it, donate it to be published on the web, and THEN link to it. There is no profit involved; there is no competition.

I had no website at the time, profitable or otherwise. I still don't; rather than start another website, I find an established site that features the kind of content I want to publish, and donate the content to them. Sometimes I donate the same content to multiple sites. And altruism is an inherent commonality of interest. I contribute to all these sites even in areas outside my particular interest because ... it serves a public interest that closely matches mine. There can be no conflict of interest.

And active editors are more likely driven by that kind of motive. (It's obvious: do the math!) We've had about 50,000 editors: even if 99% of them had been "submit my site and split" editors, they would have had about the same impact as several moderately active editalls. And we've had over 200 editalls, many of whom are much more than "moderately" active! The most active 500 editors, who do probably 90% of the work in the commercial areas, are demonstrably drawn from the altruistic pool (You don't have to add 10,000 other sites before you get rights to add your own: so why would we add all those other sites? Certainly not to hide the fact that we added our own site -- we don't have to hide that fact!)

Again, this should all be painfully obvious even to the most casual observer. In nearly any organization (volunteer and professional) 10% of the people do 90% of the work. These facts inexorably lead to the conclusion that at the most generous estimate, the potential harm to the directory of "people adding their own sites only" is miniscule. We have more than 50,000 listings invalidated by website changes every quarter! And we have more spam submittals than that every month! (And spam, not inactive editors, is the sole cause of the backlog, as I've explained multiple times, at least once with supporting arithmetic detail. Do the math if you don't believe it. Get a sixth-grader to help if you need it.)

Another obvious consequence is that the way to success is to attract the right 10% of the people. Social engineering is therefore essential. Building a community of independent volunteers who trust each other to care about the right thing involves -- trusting them to do the right thing. (Duh...) And you have to show people you won't tolerate breaches of that trust (as the U.S. Catholic Church has been emphatically reminded recently).

So the ODP founders designed those characteristics into the model. And it worked. The ODP is by far the largest of the web directories, and the most comprehensive. It is the least affected by editor bias (because by design we have such a large pool of different biases to draw from). It is the least affected by self-selection of websites, because of our aggressive approach to using multiple sources of research, and our emphasis on the primacy of editor selection. As to reliability, it was the first to address several forms of link rot effectively.

That is what actually happened. One could imagine another world where the ODP founder absconded with all the capital raised (it happens, even to churches!) and the ODP never started. One could imagine another world in which the ODP sponsor dropped sponsorship, and the directory died. (it has happened to other directories!) One could imagine a directory in which self-interest overwhelmed altruism in the editing community (I could name a couple where that happened.)

But the ODP has avoided multiple failure modes. Surely that is partly because its founders thought about them and prepared procedures that have proven adequate to oversee the potential problems -- and address the actual ones.

[krisval]

The ODP didn't invent conflict of interest. It occurs in the real world every day, and honest people have to learn to cope with it.

What I didn't see in your post is how the ODP going to deal with it. There are two editors in this very forum who have come out and said that they were at least offered bribes. This leads me to believe that some editors will accept bribes. Saying that it is potentially a small problem doesn't replace the fact the problem should be addressed. You provided valid examples of how the ODP has overcome other challenges, but the ODP now needs to address this challenge.

If it isn't widespread great, but ODP should take extra measures to ensure it will not be widespread in the future and take measures to ensure that current editors are not abusing the system.

[kctipton]

said that they were at least offered bribes. This leads me to believe that some editors will accept bribes.

It only means that they'll report that someone offered them bribes.

[kctipton]

Mr. Tipton saw that post, and promptly had me banned from the ODP.

Nice misunderstanding you have there. If I had removed you all by my little ol' self, I'd have been kicked to the curb with you.

If a post got you fired, it must have been some post. Probably there were other things you aren't mentioning here that caused problems for you.

[petertdavis]

Nice misunderstanding you have there. If I had removed you all by my little ol' self, I'd have been kicked to the curb with you.

If a post got you fired, it must have been some post. Probably there were other things you aren't mentioning here that caused problems for you.No, Mr. Tipton, there was no other things I'm not mentioning. As I stated, you saw a post of mine at Sitepoint where I was critical of the anti-affiliate bias at DMOZ and stated my opinion that a site good enough for a listing without the affiliate advertising should be good enough with it. My memory works perfectly. I never took a bribe, never was offered one. I never listed any of my own sites, didn't have any that fit in that category anyway. I never removed a competitors site, or edited it in an unfavorable way, never had any competitors listed in that category anyway. I only approved sites that were in line with ODP policy. I've worked hard to be known as one of the cleanest, most honest people that you'll come across on the internet. I have nothing to gain by making things up about you or the ODP, and everything to lose if I tried to make up some lie. You, on the other hand, Mr. Tipton, are part of the reason we see threads like this is so many webmaster-related forums around the internet.

[PhilC]

I don't know anything about it, of course, but couldn't other metas have also seen the post?

[cbp]

there was no other things I'm not mentioning I don't beleive you. Editors do not get removed for what you are alleging. DMOZ policy is not to discuss reasons publically for removal of an editor, so kctipton can not defend themselves over this (even I do not know the real reason).

I know this secrecy might make it look suspicious, but publically releasing this and other types of information would give away too much as to how they were caught (so they can better cover tracks next time they try)

[Duncan Pollock]

This whole discussion demonstrates the real difficulty of proving a negative. No one either inside or outside ODP can come up with proof that there is not any corruption.
But before the suspicion gets any greater a hold, allow me to make two points.
1. If there's any truth in the 10 Yes votes -- and this has been questioned by one or two people -- what does it mean when we're also told how many submissions are received, how many are accepted, and how many editors (with varying degrees of commitment and activity) are involved in the process? In other words, even if some corruption does exist, it cannot be anything but an infinitesimal portion of the whole.
2. Anyone who has been and/or still is an ODP editor will quickly confirm that you move very slowly up the ranks. The guidelines tell you to apply for a small category and to recognize that you'd better "behave yourself" and demonstrate that you know how to be a good editor if you've hopes of taking on more and/or larger categories. There is no fast track to a position in which you have enough sway to be offered a bribe -- and may the good lord help you if you accept it. If nothing else, you need to be aware that people who get found out for paying a bribe have no hesitation whatsoever in bringing down the person who received it.
In my view, this thread is nothing short of being storm in a teacup. Or, as one of the posters has put it, it's a whole load of codswallap.
Let's allow this Ana Whoever her opinions, but let's stop giving them the publicity they don't deserve!

Duncan :mad:

[PhilC]

Let's allow this Ana Whoever her opinions, but let's stop giving them the publicity they don't deserve!
You're dead right.

And similarly, this thread only serves to publicise that bribing is a possibility that many of us never even thought of. If you can't get in by fair means, why not try foul means? As Jill pointed out, you're no worse off than if you hadn't tried. Sorry Chris, but, imo, it would have been better had this thread not even started.

[petertdavis]

I don't beleive you.I'm sure you had your mind made up before you even visited here. However, I'm very certain that many more of the people reading this will be familiar with me, and be more inclined to believe me. Anyone who has access to the logs at DMOZ can look up the history on it, this was my old profile.... http://www.dmoz.org/profiles/petertdavis.html

[PhilC]

Perhaps it depends on the nature of the public discussion. If it approached, or got into, "bashing" (the topic of another current thread here), it would be difficult not to remove the editor.

[petertdavis]

Perhaps it depends on the nature of the public discussion. If it approached, or got into, "bashing" (the topic of another current thread here), it would be difficult not to remove the editor.
I didn't start "bashing" until after. ;)

[DustyG]

and it doesn't matter whether the specific post I made is there anymore or not. I wasn't removed for anything I did that violated the policy of DMOZ,
See, here's where you lose me. While you say what you originally wrote did not violate any policy, why go back and edit your post?

Let's just suppose, if on October 29, 2002 you post something that clearly breaks their code of conduct. Something like: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy
The content of the ODP Editor Forum, Editors' Notes, and Editor-to-Editor email or Feedback are private and intended only for internal use by ODP editors. Editors may not publish or disclose quotes from these sources to anyone other than other editors or the ODP staff…

Violation of ODP email or forum privacy will not be tolerated and is grounds for removal and possible legal action.
and then on November 14, 2002 you go back and edit out what you wrote, I just have a hard time believing that your "opinions" got you removed. It just doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that if you had posted something that could cause "legal action" it might motivate you to go back and remove what could be considered proof. At least it would cause me to go back and erase it, if I thought I could get sued.

Now you say things like:
but the point I'm making is that there's something wrong with an organization that cannot accept open discussion on policy such as this. Banning someone, like they did to me, for a discussion on a fairly minor point of policy isn't a good thing, in my opinion.

And to bolster this claim you refer back to a thread that has since been altered, I think you'll be hard pressed to find much support among people that don't already have a grudge against DMOZ.

I'm not suggesting DMOZ is a clean as the driven snow, but I'm just not convinced that if you open your mouth, they remove you for it.

You can keep on claiming it, as it is your right, but it would have been nice if I could have seen it for myself. You asked that people look for themselves and now that I did, you say it doesn't matter what I found and I should just take your word for it. Nope, sorry, ain't happening. :)

[petertdavis]

No, I did not post any private information from the ODP. You'll find that I edited a lot of posts around the time that I got thrown out of the ODP. The edits were of the context of chaning "the ODP is great" to "the ODP sucks" because I was pissed off about it. If I really wanted to hide something, I'd just have deleted the entire thread. I wonder exactly what made you register at this forum to try to frame me as a liar. Who exactly are you anyway?

[Genie]

Sorry Peter - I have edited my post to link to the public version of the Guidelines.

[PhilC]

It sounds like you are still miffed about it, Peter, but being a DMOZ editor is no big deal. Most people allow themselves to time-out. If you were chucked out even though you didn't break the rules, I'm sure you are not the only one. It doesn't make DMOZ corrupt, though. It just means that they were probably a bit over-zealous that day. If they start chucking people out because they won't toe the line and take bribes, for instance, then the organisation would be corrupt, but different people have different interpretations of rules, and so it's bound to happen once in a while. It's no big deal.

[Chris Boggs]

ok it seems as this thread has had its run. Thanks to everyone who participated in a civil manner.

Please note that another thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=6124) was spawned from this thread that deals with DMOZ's stance on "affiliate" or duplicate content sites. that thread is open.