Dmoz

[MichaelCorfman]

Let me "truly be clear" not just say it ... and while I hate to speak for him, I think AussieDave included that other site, because that other site is also listed in the editors dmoz category AND it also links to the editors site on its home page as well.

Yes, I saw that was the case after I made my post. AussieDave and I were posting on top of each other.

You see its not one level, one site ... its dozens of sites multi levels deep .... Course, I guess thats the kind of speculation that offers no real proof of anything fishy at all. I might agree with you if this was not an ongoing theme, but thats not the case as it very much is an ongoing theme!

Yes, well it is pretty easy to construct conspiracy theories pointing to a couple examples without a detailed analysis. For example, one could build a sample of about 50% of the results of roulette wheel spins, if you chose them carefully, and then argue that the roulette wheel was rigged because all the example results one chose came up red. Never mind that the other 50% were pretty much all black.

That is the situation we pretty clearly have in the case of the gambling categories according to my analysis - a few examples that one might question if just those examples are picked out. I have a detailed list of the sites listed in the dmoz categories where webzcas has editing authority that is cross-referenced with link exchanges. I will post my analysis of that information (probably tomorrow - I don't have time tonight). But the results make it pretty clear to me that the examples given in this forum do not represent a smoking gun regarding any real issues at all.

The thing that I think is wrong is that the same level of analysis was not done by the folks making accusations here first. Find an example, jump to a conclusion and publicize it to the world before carefully digging through all the details is what was done. And that, in my book, is just plain wrong. It is like shooting someone walking down the street in front of your house because you don't like their looks and then afterwards thinking that saying you're sorry because you really thought they were a dangerous person and you were just trying to protect yourself will make everything alright. Anyone that is a dmoz editor must be corrupt. What other possible explanation is there for their contribution of time? So let's attack them. It is bigotry and prejudice in both cases.

Michael

[arkyt]

Yes, I saw that was the case after I made my post. AussieDave and I were posting on top of each other.

I had posted the exact same information 30 minutes before AussieDave posted - maybe you had just skipped my post - maybe that simple connection wasn't as simple as adding dollar signs.

The thing that I think is wrong is that the same level of analysis was not done by the folks making accusations here first.

FYI, a detailed analysis was completed of every single site listed in the dmoz categories, not just a few examples! Not only that an analysis was completed on every single site that those listed sites link to! This wasn't done in an hour, a day or a few days - it took weeks. This proof isn't a game of roulette where there are easily defined parameters - there is absolutely no correlation of dmoz listing to any damn game other than the gaming of the system!

[MichaelCorfman]

FYI, a detailed analysis was completed of every single site listed in the dmoz categories, not just a few examples! Not only that an analysis was completed on every single site that those listed sites link to! This wasn't done in an hour, a day or a few days - it took weeks. This proof isn't a game of roulette where there are easily defined parameters - there is absolutely no correlation of dmoz listing to any damn game other than the gaming of the system!

So, if you have such a detailed analysis that you believe demonstrates some issues, why is it not shared? Why would it not serve your purpose to disclose the complete details that you believe justify your views?

Michael

[arkyt]

So, if you have such a detailed analysis that you believe demonstrates some issues, why is it not shared? Why would it not serve your purpose to disclose the complete details that you believe justify your views?

As I have previously stated, this information has been shared with the appropriate dmoz officials, once they have completed their investigation the data will be released.

[MichaelCorfman]

As I have previously stated, this information has been shared with the appropriate dmoz officials, once they have completed their investigation the data will be released.

Well, in my opinion, letting this topic ramble on without a willingness to disclose the information you have so members can look at it and consider it on its merits is pointless. If and when you are ready to disclose the information then I believe we can reasonably continue a discussion on this topic.

In the meantime I believe it is inappropriate. So I am closing this thread and request that this topic not be raised again until you are ready to release the data.

Michael