Dmoz Fraud and Gaming The System

[TheCPA]

The entire process can take up to 90 days or more to me completed.

Then you should have waited 90 days to post these serious accusations in public. JMO.

You might find out that these guys are trying to make a nice contribution to the Industry for free.

[AussieDave]

TIME WARNER LOLOLOLOLOL

I dare say your last two posts are fuelled by bravado - banging one's chest in a pointless and futile effort to achieve a level of Alpha Male superiority in battle you successful lost!

Whilst the majority of your other posts use the 10 foot tall and bullet proof ideology found synonymous with bullies. Using electronic media to perpetrate intimidation from behind a monitor, via sms or any other electronic means to deliver maximum collateral damage.

Reiterating for a self proclaimed gaming industry professional, your a class act!

Like Arkyt, this is also my final post. Until I've heard for the appropriate channels regarding these complaints.


Cheers



Dave

[Dominique]

Perhaps you guys need to look at the time frame when these links were added. Years and years ago, and all at different points in time. They have absolutely nothing to do with DMOZ.

All the sites I link to are providing a great service to players and they compliment mine by focussing on different aspects that are also important for players. So I added their link as player resource over time.

Anyway, this is an entertaining thread but it's not going to go anyplace. This thread is a deja vu, there have been threads about DMOZ corruption of editors for years and years.

It never goes anywhere because DMOZ is a volunteer organization where editors act on their own time, are as active as their life allows, and so far all items I have seen brought up over the years have been within DMOZ guidelines.

If you actually want to change the fact that a lot of good sites have not been yet accepted, you are going to have to volunteer and attempt change from within. Change the guide lines. Get sites reviewed in order received.

[MichaelCorfman]

If tomorrow webzcas, Michael, Bryan or anyone was in a position where an injustice had been committed against them, I'd be the first to stand up and stand back to back fighting against those wrongs too. I don't discriminate again who or what I stand up for!

So, in this thread, I would say that an injustice has been commited against webzcas, Michael (me), Bryan, and other editors at ODP in the form of going public with unproven allegations you have stated you refuse to publish rather than waiting for an investigation to be performed. So, will you stand up against yourself on that basis?

Also, personally I don't buy the argument that you cannot reveal information because others might copy it. I would argue that having a fraudulent scheme out in the open when there are folks who will use that information to uncover issues and protect others will generally reduce corruption. You really cannot fight corruption you are not willing to expose any of the details of the corruption.

Additionally, if you truly believe the information cannot be made public, then I would request a copy of it be provided to me for review. Providing such a copy will not undermine any allegations that might be made since historical archives exist of activities within dmoz, and I'm sure you have historical copies of any data to back up your allegations, so any evidence would not be undermined were that the case. And if you don't want to provide a copy to me, then I'm sure some trusted third-party could be found. Let me know if you are willing to provide the information you have to any third-party to report their views on it here.

As Dave (webzcas) stated earlier, the issues reported in this thread have been brought to the attention of senior dmoz editors for investigation and they have been given a link to this thread so they can see the statements that have been made.

As editors I believe, as does Dave, that we have responsibilities to 1) edit fairly in accordance with dmoz guidelines, 2) to disclose all of our affiliations so that senior editors can review our work for fairness understanding those relationships, and 3) to disclose any questions relating to our objectivity to the editorial community.

I would also say that the senior editor who has been the contact point for alerting the senior editorial community to the issues raised here is one of a small number of very senior and respected volunteer editors within dmoz who is viewed a genuinely caring about the quality and objectivity of dmoz as a whole.

Michael

[graham]

I was always of the opinion that you weren't allowed to be an editor in a category where you had some business affiliation with. Has that changed? I haven't even tried getting any casino sites in after my experience with the poker categories (which I have been told are controlled by poker affiliates), so I guess it is the same with casino too.

[Webzcas]

I was always of the opinion that you weren't allowed to be an editor in a category where you had some business affiliation with. Has that changed? I haven't even tried getting any casino sites in after my experience with the poker categories (which I have been told are controlled by poker affiliates), so I guess it is the same with casino too.

Editors may have business or other types of affiliations relevant to the categories they edit, and may add their own sites or sites with which they are affiliated.

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

As stated in this thread and for the record, all editor applications have to disclose all their affiliations. This includes whether you moderate on a forum but do not have a vested financial interest.

[MichaelCorfman]

I was always of the opinion that you weren't allowed to be an editor in a category where you had some business affiliation with. Has that changed? I haven't even tried getting any casino sites in after my experience with the poker categories (which I have been told are controlled by poker affiliates), so I guess it is the same with casino too.

I don't believe that has ever been the case. What is required is that you fully disclose all relationships. That way more senior editors can review affiliated listings. Failure to disclose all affiliations and abuse of editing priviliges are both grounds for dismissal as an editor.

The general issue getting gambling affiliate sites listed, from my perspective, is the result of a lack of editors that focus on that area. And, because of past instances of corruption, it is not trivial to become an editor with broad editing authority in that area. It requires small baby steps. And I think it also requires a willingness to edit in a number of categories outside of the gambling category because experience and a track record of good editing is necessary to gain more responsiblity within dmoz, and it is hard to establish the right track record just working in one area of the directory when it is as controversial an area in terms of abuse potential as the gambling categories.

Personally, I'd really like to see more folks with experience in the industry contribute because it takes a variety of folks with different perspectives, and with some time to help out, to put things in a better place. Volunteer efforts need volunteers to be successful.

As I say in my editor profile: "I am enthusiastic about being an editor at dmoz and would be happy to share my experience and perspective with you if you are considering becoming an editor yourself. Like almost anything worthwhile it is not all roses. That means you can made a difference." If you are thinking about becoming an editor, I encourage you to apply, but I also encourage you to get in touch with me or Dave or another editor for our thoughts and suggestions. Becoming an editor for the gambling categories is not trivial - both Dave and I were rejected as editors the first time we applied, so having some feedback and encouragement is important.

Michael

[graham]

I don't believe that has ever been the case. What is required is that you fully disclose all relationships. That way more senior editors can review affiliated listings. Failure to disclose all affiliations and abuse of editing priviliges are both grounds for dismissal as an editor.

The general issue getting gambling affiliate sites listed, from my perspective, is the result of a lack of editors that focus on that area. And, because of past instances of corruption, it is not trivial to become an editor with broad editing authority in that area. It requires small baby steps. And I think it also requires a willingness to edit in a number of categories outside of the gambling category because experience and a track record of good editing is necessary to gain more responsiblity within dmoz, and it is hard to establish the right track record just working in one area of the directory when it is as controversial an area in terms of abuse potential as the gambling categories.

Personally, I'd really like to see more folks with experience in the industry contribute because it takes a variety of folks with different perspectives, and with some time to help out, to put things in a better place. Volunteer efforts need volunteers to be successful.

As I say in my editor profile: "I am enthusiastic about being an editor at dmoz and would be happy to share my experience and perspective with you if you are considering becoming an editor yourself. Like almost anything worthwhile it is not all roses. That means you can made a difference." If you are thinking about becoming an editor, I encourage you to apply, but I also encourage you to get in touch with me or Dave or another editor for our thoughts and suggestions. Becoming an editor for the gambling categories is not trivial - both Dave and I were rejected as editors the first time we applied, so having some feedback and encouragement is important.

Michael

Ah ok I get it, the reason I thought that is because I have applied a few times to be an editor in a category where I had no affiliations whatsoever but each time I got a reply something like saying a whole bunch of stuff about being affiliated with sites:

"

* Incomplete application. Insufficient information has been provided in some
fields including reason, affiliation and/or Sample URLs.
* Improper spelling and grammar.
* Sample URLs are inappropriate for the category which one has applied to
edit. They may be too broad, too narrow, completely out of scope, poor
quality, or in a language inappropriate for the category. All non-English
sites are listed in the World category. Applications for World categories
that include sites only in English will be denied. Likewise, applications
for World categories that include sample URLs in languages other than the one
appropriate for the applied category will be denied.
* Not properly disclosing affiliations with websites that are, or have the
potential of being, listed in the category.
* Titles and descriptions of sample URLs (and other information provided)
were subjective and promotional rather than unbiased and objective. ODP
editors do not rank or write website reviews. ODP editors provide objective
and unbiased descriptions of websites and their content.
* Self-Promotion. Application which leads us to believe that the candidate is
interested primarily in promoting his/her own sites or those with which the
applicant is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should not be
used to circumvent the site submission process. If this is an applicant's
motivation for joining, then we ask him/her not to apply. Editors found to be
inappropriately promoting their own site will be promptly removed. "

To the best of my knowledge I filled out the application properly, and listed quality sites for those categories but still they didn't want me. Any tips on how to get in as a volunteer?

[Webzcas]

Sure, send either Michael or myself a copy of your application and either one of us will go over it for you. My email is webzcas @ bathrockmedia.com

The response you received is generic. The reason they don't specify which area you tripped up on, is because they want a potential editor to know where they have gone wrong and correct it.

Unless you have been specifically told not to reapply, it is absolutely fine to have another stab at it.

[Fergie]

My bold in the quotations:

Yes we have more than enough proof.

Although I'm more than happy to release proof, it would be irresponsible of anyone to post what we have to a public forum. It would clearly provide unknown people with means to mimic a similar strategy.

However being the all knowing, all clued up dmoz editor you claim to be, you'd also know, these serious allegations MUST go through proper channels. To do this, Time Warner is the owner of Netscape Communications, and they in turn control the ODP.

ZOMG! I'm agreeing with you, AussieDave! Allegations such as these must go through the proper channels, and it would be irresponsible to post such on a public forum. That's a big HELL YEAH!

On a more somber note, as per the Martin Luther King quotation AussieDave himself used, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter", I offer my thoughts:

If you think that it's ok to accuse people of things without backing up your accusations, then what is to stop anybody (and their dog and their dog's dog) from muddying anyone's reputation by making false accusations? Nothing. That is why it is crucial that you go through the proper channels, lest innocent people be harmed, and the accuser(s) be accused of being malicious and irresponsible.

[AK]

Anyone new that lands on this 10 page article the summary is the following:

Several affiliates that are dmoz editors are doing a link wheel within each others network round table and are playing favorites towards there own websites and not approving legit aged established ones etc. A few are wanting proof so they can review it with there sleazy lawyer crew to insure they have there butts covered.

In Conclusion: name calling has been done, tantrums, playing innocents, victim role playing, and my favorite acting president of all time Nixon even made an appearance.

Result: Entertainment at its lowest for a very cold Feb 08th.

Next thread

[alexpratt]

Just realised I should be added to the link wheel alliance - I have multiple event sites listed here http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Arts_an...g/Conferences/ and the iGB Affiliate site here http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/C...Opportunities/

Plus I have linked to GPWA across all our sites - Oh and come to think of it I also link to Dom, Webcaz and Casinomeister, and in fact a whole bunch of other site owners in DMOZ......

SO based on your "theories" I should also be included in the evil wheel......or actually if you looked closer you would see that none of these things tie together its just that successful webmasters often have similar strategies or shock horror some people actually do link deals or simply do things that don't have underlying "link wheel" motivations

[Dominique]

Several affiliates that are dmoz editors are doing a link wheel within each others network round table

That is absolutely incorrect. And it was never even said in this thread.

Firstly, there are only 2 editors, and secondly, there is no link wheel. I finally got a chance to research how these were done (and they are outdated and google has been on to them for two years now, so a stupid trick that costs) and there is nothing there that could be functioning as a link wheel.

Plus, that's a heck of a long time to build a link wheel, some of the links are 8 years old. To think that anyone, let alone people who run successful sites, would take 8 years to build a link wheel which can only hurt them, is ridiculous.

These sort of tricks are used by mostly new sites to gain some traction. Casinomeister, casinocity and gamesandcasino don't need dirty tricks to survive, the risk of doing any blackhat or greyhat tricks is way too big for old, well established sites like that. They are not disposable. You can't rebuild them under another domain.

Dumb tricks like building link wheels are the last thing you will ever see these sites do.

Learn something about the topic before commenting. Link wheels are plain stupid and are bound to get caught out by google.

[TheCPA]

I've got one of my work crews over here fixing a leak in my roof.
I've been calling them Numpties all day! LMAO
Like me, they didn't know what a Numpty meant.
HMM, guess that makes me a Numpty too! LOL

So for me, that's the about the only value to this thread.
I learned a new word!

[Dominique]

Numpty is a new one on me too, so I looked it up:


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=numpty

[AK]

Just realised I should be added to the link wheel alliance - I have multiple event sites listed here http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Arts_an...g/Conferences/ and the iGB Affiliate site here http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/C...Opportunities/

Plus I have linked to GPWA across all our sites - Oh and come to think of it I also link to Dom, Webcaz and Casinomeister, and in fact a whole bunch of other site owners in DMOZ......

SO based on your "theories" I should also be included in the evil wheel.

Alex, CORRECT

How does that half a page site make DMOZ without it ? We got sites like Gambling911.com that are not listed at DMOZ but sites like that are... I need to join this round table, how does one apply ? Oh I forgot, no openings

No pun attended by the way

That is absolutely incorrect. And it was never even said in this thread.

Dominique I love You girl... See that's like the pope saying, "the bible does not mention that" I would not dare cross clean hands like yourself do not think I would either. (Even if your part of the round circle)

[MichaelCorfman]

Numpty is a new one on me too, so I looked it up:


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=numpty

Yes, I just looked it up there too. I'm assuming the primary definition is the one which webzcas meant when he used the term, which includes the following definition:

A good humoured admonition, a term of endearment

Certainly it would not have been the secondary definition given:

A person who never has or never will have a f*ing clue what he is doing

Michael

[arkyt]

Yes, I just looked it up there too. I'm assuming the primary definition is the one which webzcas meant when he used the term, which includes the following definition:

A good humoured admonition, a term of endearment

Certainly it would not have been the secondary definition given:

A person who never has or never will have a f*ing clue what he is doing

Michael

Thanks for validating the already identifyed one-sided free reign on name calling... forget about spending time policing the rogue programs you promote here at GPWA - looking up the definitions of personal attacks is without a doubt much more important.

[AK]

If one is excepted as an editor at DMOZ can one delete other editor approved websites or is there some sort of protocol for that ?

Thanks for validating the already identifyed one-sided free reign on name calling... forget about spending time policing the rogue programs you promote here at GPWA - looking up the definitions of personal attacks is without a doubt much more important.

Have to disagree with You arkyt on this one. Everyone including the founder has some rights while posting here.. They have put up with many expressing there feelings on how "they roll" around here for several years.. I think it's only fair Michael is allowed to be human and express his anger on things once in awhile to.

No doubt some true stuff, some agenda stuff. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, sort through and find out what is true and what is not.

[Betpartners]

Well on the scales of justice I think being called a numpty is the lesser of two evils.

On one scale we have a group of people accused of corruption for the want of a better word without any proof at all and on the other hand someone is called a numpty for making the said accusations without proof.

I think in the big scheme of things being called a numpty would be the least of my worries if I was the one that had made as yet unproven accusations and when called upon to present the proof, fails to do so.

Think there will be other names a lot worse than numpty attached to someone making false accusations (false until poof is shown that is)

Put it this way, you have to think it will be a lot easier to apologise for calling someone a numpty than it would be to apologise for making allegations without proof after maintaining that position for god knows how many pages now.

One thing for sure, it is a damn pickle to save face when the egg is so firmly planted.