Dmoz Fraud and Gaming The System

[Dominique]

The thought of being in a link wheel gives me the shivers. I barely ever link at all except to sites with rogue pages, from my rogue page, to show visitors that I am not alone in my opinion. And there it's mostly no follow these days because most of these sites end up not being there or removing links without notice. I hate linking with a passion.

I confine it to the following:

A handful of sites on my index who have been there for years and who I consider to be a valid supplement to my site, as in they give different types of info on the same subject matter. One of these sites is my own and no follow.

A handful of organizations I consider useful to the industry. GPWA is there, as is APCW and AGD.

I like to reserve my link juice for links within my site. I know everyone scrambles to get all kinds of links, but I think google likes it when you link to a few sites that actually compliment your topic and are useful for visitors.

With thousands of pages and many years online, imo the best way to use my link juice is to send google to new pages on my own site. I add new pages constantly. If I didn't reserve juice for them, google would most certainly throw them as deep links into the supplemental index.

The thought of me participating in some link scheme is ridiculous and - scary! The faster they rise, the harder they fall. I am into slow and steady and avoiding issues with google like the plague.

I do link freely from my blogs to other info sources.

Anyway, this thread is pretty horrible. Can we help each other instead of fighting?

[Webzcas]

No tantrum. Just stating fact.

You conveniently avoid the facts you have been furnished with in this thread. Indeed there are several editors who are members of the GPWA who could also confirm independantly the information I have provided you with. Kaus has also confirmed in black and white, it is ok for a domain to have multiple listings in the directory.

Yet you ignore this. Why?

My calling you a numpty is not childish, it is right on the money. If the cap fits Dave. I will say this though, thank god you are not an editor.

Now by all means carry on with your Webzcas is evil campaign.

[arkyt]

No tantrum. Just stating fact.

How exactly do the constant personal attacks / name calling tirades correlate to just stating the facts? I am lost because, I don't understand that angle at all.

Webzcas may I ask you a few questions about your dedication to the dmoz directory?

1) How long have you been an editor?
2) How many sites have you added since you become an editor?
3) How many of your close pals have sites listed in your categories?

No need to throw flames - please stick to the facts.

Clearly if you are eager to see that the directory is a better one, you will have been very active editing your categories. I am interested in seeing how active you've been at being a non-biased editor.

Lets let the facts speak for themselves. Ok?

Much appreciated.

[MichaelCorfman]

There are portions of this thread that are reasonable in terms of the questions that are raised and answers that are given and there are portions of this thread that are not.

The thread started with name calling, and there were responses in kind. Please, from here on forward, no more of that.

Now, in terms of some of the specific issues that have been raised, I am an editor in dmoz myself, so I am competent to answer some of the questions being raised in this thread.

1. There is no general prohibition in dmoz against a site being listed more than once or against having links to pages within a site. There are principles and considerations that apply in terms of deciding when multiple listings are appropriate, and the nature of those listings.

2. The casinomeister website was mentioned as having two links within dmoz. Actually, it has three that I know about. I can confirm that none of the links to the casinomeister website were added by webzcas - the editing records that are visible to all editors make that clear. The third one that has not been previously mentioned in this thread is located on the following dmoz page: http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/C...Opportunities/.

3. The dmoz community cares very much about instances of editor corruption. When folks volunteer to help with something they tend to be very intolerant of actions of others that damage the reputation of a project to which they are committed. Has there been corruption? Of course there has been because with thousands of editors there are bad apples. But the dmoz community responds to corruption when it is uncovered in much the same way the GPWA community responds to corruption among members.

4. There is much I know and could say to dispute statements made in this thread. However, as an editor I am bound to treat a lot of information as confidential. There are forums for editors and editing history information available to editors. But in accepting a position as editor one is bound to respect the confidentiality of that information. It is pretty much the same situation as GPWA private members here. I cannot disclose information I know about from the private GPWA forums to other dmoz editors that are not members here any more than I can share dmoz information with non-dmoz editors here.

5. Editors at dmoz are welcome to list their own sites when such listings are appropriate based on editorial guidelines. Some editors actually impose higher standards on themselves than they would apply to the same sites submitted by others in order to try to remain above reproach. As a fellow editor I've personally had discussions with webzcas that lead me to believe he takes this more conservative approach.

6. I have offered, and I make the offer here again, to follow up on any specific examples of inappropriate editor actions in violation of dmoz editing principles. There are also specific channels through which anyone can report inappropriate editing activities for investigation. But right now in this thread all I see at the moment are unsubstantiated theories.

Michael

[Amateur]

The thing that I see here is that some here are very disturbed about DMOZ, and the level of transparency with the listings in the direcotry, while others don't see a major issue.

For those who are concerned, why not become an editor yourself, then you can find out what you need to know, while making a contribution to assure that things are running as you feel they should be.

If you see a problem, become part of the solution to the problem! If you are not willing to do that, your complaints will fall on deaf ears.

[Webzcas]

Michael,

Thankyou for stepping in and confirming several points which have been selectively ignored by Aussie Dave. I suppose I should be expecting an apology and a retraction of his allegations not just on this thread, but also on that site of his. But I am not holding my breath.

Dave no doubt will see what he wants to see and will not let facts get in his way, which he has continued to demonstrate in this thread. Unless of course he believes you are also part of this great all encompassing conspiracy and are part of this wheel of fortune. lol

Arkyt. Nice of you to take a vested interest in my own edits. Not that I have to answer to you or anyone else outside the DMOZ community. Particularly an individual who has in the past shown himself up to rip off design material ( eCOGRA - And yes I do speak with Andrew and am well aware of his view of iGAMI when you started it ), employ sock puppets and also does not do any good for the industry.

Whether I get banned from here or reprimanded, I will say it again. You and Aussie Dave are a pair of numpties. Wallowing in self pity, seeing alleged alliances which don't exist and concentrating on all things negative. You provide nothing to this industry or this community and are indeed a good example of what is actually bad with affiliates. Self serving, self opinionated and divisive.

I will say this though, I only link with quality sites. Yes that does mean some of those sites are of sufficient quality to warrant a listing in DMOZ. The vast majority of which were already listed prior to my being made an editor. Out of in excess of 1500 edits I have performed, only a handful of sites which I link to and have backlinks from have I personally added.

As Michael commented above, Casinomeister is one such site I have not added. SHOCK HORROR - STOP THE PRESS.

[Former Member 14]

I suppose I should be expecting an apology and a retraction of his allegations

Maybe now you'll hold some empathy towards how others feel when you've made allegations and neglected to apologise when you were wrong!

If I genuinely felt I was out of line, I'd have no qualms in apologising.

However, the ghosts in the shadows belong to skeletons I've unearthed and I'm not about to say sorry for things that don't add up.


Cheers



Dave

[Former Member 14]

Can we help each other instead of fighting?

I wish it was like that but it's not. Unfortunately money turns some people greedy and their integrity goes to hell in a handbag.


Cheers



Dave

[Webzcas]

Dave

The only skeletons you have unearthed are those in your own mind.

I stand by my comments, you are a first class numpty.

If you suspect editor abuse. Report it using the appropriate channels afforded to anyone who visits the dmoz site, instead of spouting crap as it just further shows you for the imbecile you are.

[GCG]

FWIW I will post my view on this :

If I was an editor I would not list casinos-online.co.uk because I feel it is not a great resource yet (also too fast to make the switch)....but that is not up to me.

I think the dmoz gambling category has a lot of sites with flashing banners and ads that won't help the visitor to find info they need.

Moreover some descriptions are too general, repeating and far too long.

I started with a new online slots site that has now more than 1100 pages and counting but I could not get a dmoz listing. It is disappointing but I will continue to work on new pages, this will not hamper me to build a good site for players, not SE.

Would I list my site if I was an editor? Yes ofcourse if it would meet ALL guidelines.

Would I delist my first site and list a different one after a while ? NO. Why not ? Because I feel one should not take abuse of the directory to get quality links and delist once the mission is completed and start with a new vehicle all over again.
I agree there are some exceptions : you lost control over the site etc.
OCR is your first site, make that a quality site I do not see a reason why you had to make the switch. THIS is what I call gaming the system which should NOT be allowed.

Besides that there are others that would like to be listed too. Editing the google directory is not unlimited, you are a special guest not the host.

If you are an editor think about what I just posted.

[Webzcas]

OCR is your first site, make that a quality site I do not see a reason why you had to make the switch

OCR is imo a quality site and it's listing in guides was approved as part of my application to become an editor. However with my editors hat on, Casinos-Online.co.uk is a far superior resource already. It has a lot of unique content, the reviews are not the standard adcopy fare found on 99% of portals ( Read them ), it has regularly updated industry news, information for players, such as banking, software and gambling jurisdictions and free flash play games. Plus every other sentence is not linking out to a casino.

Hence OCR has been removed and Casinos-Online.co.uk has been listed, because Casinos-Online.co.uk is being updated daily. Personally I believe both should be listed, but I am not allowed to do so.

Well certainly I am using my position as an editor to make that change ( Removing OCR and listing Casinos-Online.co.uk ) - but this is a position that I have been entrusted with and the change actually does improve the category. Bottom line is, I am concerned at providing a useful resource to the visitors to the categories I am fortunate to have permissions to edit in.

The issue here I believe is that certain webmasters do not like the fact that editors are indeed able to list their sites. Whilst waiting for what can seem like forever to get their own sites listed.

I have in total one site listed in the Gambling Branch and three sites listed in total.

My political forum and my company website are the others and yes I did list them. But I have declared them to DMOZ. In addition I have also declared I moderate on Casinomeister and that my company hosts Affiliate Guard Dog. Indeed DMOZ Senior Editors know more about the sites I own, than probably any member of GPWA.

Is it against the rules to list your own sites? Not if they meet the listing criteria. However where abuse comes in, is if you list multiple sites that you own within any particular branch and do not apply the listing criteria objectively.

From my own experience, editing the gambling categories is not an enjoyable experience. Especially having to wade through the numerous banner farms in the suggested pool. This is why many editors choose not to edit there. As demonstrated in this thread, editing in gambling is viewed with suspicion. Editing in Regional is so much better imo.

Ideally what I would like is more gaming webmasters to apply to become editors as to be honest there are very few of us actively editing in the gambling branch. Threads such as these started by Dave just make those editors that do edit in gambling less inclined to do so. Now that is a big disservice to this industry.

One last point. DMOZ is not the Google Directory. Google uses the DMOZ RDF dump to populate it's directory. DMOZ has no control whatsoever when this happens.

[MichaelCorfman]

Would I delist my first site and list a different one after a while ? NO. Why not ? Because I feel one should not take abuse of the directory to get quality links and delist once the mission is completed and start with a new vehicle all over again.

This is actually an area where dmoz editing guidelines apply. Generally, within a single category of dmoz, only one website with specific content should be listed. It is generally not permitted to list multiple sites that are considered to be "mirror" sites within dmoz with the same owner - that is, sites that contain substantially the same or very similar content created by the same person.

As an editor one is also chartered with listing the best site among mirror sites when it is appropriate to list one of the sites in a mirror group.

So, in the case outlined above, and given that the replacement site listed is viewed by the editor as being superior to the original listed site, then replacing the original site with the better site in a mirror group is not editorial abuse. It is actually an instance of properly applying dmoz editorial guidelines. Abuse would be listing the newer "better" site without delisting the original mirror site at the same time.

Michael

[arkyt]

The thread started with name calling, and there were responses in kind. Please, from here on forward, no more of that.

Michael - when is your request to stop the name calling actually going to be enforced?

Webzcas - I'll ask again ...

1) What date did you become an editor?
2) How many sites have you added to the Gambling Categories?

I'm confident that those generic questions do not violate any dmoz privileges or sworn secrecy policies. These simple questions should confirm that you are truly working to make the directory better or they just might help confirm that you are merely playing guard dog to assure that all your pals have listings and your competitors do not.

Thanks!

[Former Member 14]

Hi all,

Over 1000 views in under 48 hours, this thread obviously is being viewed with interest. However not too many people are posting.

With that said, if you are not posting for fear of reprisal or being flamed but you have "factual information" you'd like to put forward, you can send it to me via one of my sites online contact forms.

No identity is required, however the senders IP is attached to all messages.

Contact points are available at the following domains:
xxxhttp://www.rawfunkgames.com.au/contact/
xxxhttp://www.australian-onlinecasinos.com/contact.php
xxxhttp://www.rawfunk.com.au/contact.php




Cheers



Dave

[Webzcas]

Michael - when is your request to stop the name calling actually going to be enforced?

Webzcas - I'll ask again ...

1) What date did you become an editor?
2) How many sites have you added to the Gambling Categories?

I'm confident that those generic questions do not violate any dmoz privileges or sworn secrecy policies. These simple questions should confirm that you are truly working to make the directory better or they just might help confirm that you are merely playing guard dog to assure that all your pals have listings and your competitors do not.

Thanks!

Were you once an editor or did you ever have any of your site or sites listed and then removed?

Now if your questions like the rest of your posts were not implying I had done anything wrong, then I would gladly provide you with the answers.

However seeing as you have an agenda, are not a very likeable individual and judge people by your own low standards ( See post I made above which you conveniently ignored ) you'll just have to wait until my next article about the directory.

In the meantime, Kaus, Michael or any other editor has the information you request available to them.

[GCG]

First of all : I do NOT feel a grudge against anybody just to make that clear.

The example about webzcas sites I posted about is just a coincidence because I saw the change.

Movin' on :

I feel when you have editorial privileges you should be very careful what you are doing with that - especially with regard to your own site listing - moreover because in this example your new site casinos-online.co.uk is quite fresh and in your eyes that one is more valuable to you, which gives some a feeling of COI.

I know it is not against the guidelines - but at this moment in time - it is not a pretty move either, I would have waited until that site had some aged content and far more pages than the other one. IMO adding more fresh and better content to the new site as a reason for the switch -now- does not look 100% kosher to others.

[MichaelCorfman]

Webzcas - I'll ask again ...

1) What date did you become an editor?
2) How many sites have you added to the Gambling Categories?

I'm confident that those generic questions do not violate any dmoz privileges or sworn secrecy policies. These simple questions should confirm that you are truly working to make the directory better or they just might help confirm that you are merely playing guard dog to assure that all your pals have listings and your competitors do not.

The answer here is not as simple as you presume is the case. Posting externally any information obtained from the systems editors use internally is generally a violation of the confidentiality you agree as an editor.

I can say that I personally became an editor in December 2009 (although the notification I was an editor went into my junk mail folder, so I did not realize I was an editor or start editing until the middle of January 2010). And I know from personal communications with webzcas that he became an editor a couple months before me. If the only reason I knew that fact was from looking at internal editor systems, which do provide that information, then it would not be appropriate to share that information.

In terms of number of additions, changes, and deletes to categories by particular editors, and the change history for particular site listings, that information can be obtained through dmoz information systems available to all editors. However, that information is considered confidential information that should not be shared outside of the editor community.

What is public is the profile for each editor, and in that context it is possible to see that webzcas has much greater editing privs outside of the gambling categories than he does within those categories. And I can certainly share that greater privs go along with more editing activity, so what is true, even from public facts, is that webzcas is a much more active editor in categories outside gambling than he is with categories inside gambling. The same is true of me also. Editing the gambling categories is painful compared with editing other categories.

Public dmoz editor listing for MichaelCorfman.
Public dmoz editor listing for webzcas.

Also, one possible myth to dispel is that someone listed as the editor for a category has responsibility or control over the contents of that category. There are hundreds of very senior editors that have a more final say over what happens in the directory, and it is not uncommon for them to remove listings from categories they deem inappropriate that were added by more junior editors with less responsibility. The bottom line is that you should not assume that the sites listed in a category represent the views of the editor(s) listed as editing the category.

Michael

[arkyt]

Thats what I figured - ignore the simple questions and continue with the attacks / misdirection. Thats ok I already know when you joined, I know which sites you have added and which sites you have removed and when you did it.

Yes I have an agenda - have since day one in this industry - fairness and equality for all! If you wish to cling on to the idea that I ripped off ecogra and that some how discredits my opinion on dmoz - so be it.

I know it is not against the guidelines - but at this moment in time - it is not a pretty move either

Yah, but it will get another of his sites, a keyword stuffed / UK facing domain into Google SERPS and quick - unfortunately, not because the site is totally awesome, but because the system has been gamed!

The answer here is not as simple as you presume is the case.

Thanks Michael ... and to the point about the name calling which is being given free reign?

[Webzcas]

Yah, but it will get another of his sites, a keyword stuffed / UK facing domain into Google SERPS and quick - unfortunately, not because the site is totally awesome, but because the system has been gamed!

Keyword stuffed. Well the domain is good I give you that. But the content is anything but stuffed with keywords. If you actually bother to read it, you would realise that.

UK facing, well it would be, being a .co.uk domain and the fact I as a rule don't target the US primarily. If you were in London last week, you would have heard me elaborate as to the reasons why on the Round Table Discussion panel.

I am not gaming the system at all. The fact remains, I have replaced a site which was listed with another site, which has better quality content which more importantly offers visitors more information.

I have been nothing but open and honest in all my work on the directory.

You have had a bee in your bonnet about DMOZ for at least 5/6 years now. Which leads me to believe you are either an ex editor who got kicked out, or had your sites removed.

Too bad. Instead of dispensing all your energy in trying to improve your sites, you carry on crying foul and posting away here.

Thats ok I already know when you joined, I know which sites you have added and which sites you have removed and when you did it

So why ask? So you must either be an editor or have a crystal ball. In that case, can you tell me what colour pants I am currently wearing.

One last point, if you suspect an editor of abuse, please report it here.

I'm out of this thread.

[MichaelCorfman]

Thanks Michael ... and to the point about the name calling which is being given free reign?

For the record, the name calling was not being given free reign. There were exchanges behind the scenes about taking the higher road and the reasons that is the right thing to do. But for the record also, it can be a real challenge to stay cool in the face of public posting that is pointed and personal and also attacking a project where one is devoting time and energy as well, as is the case for webzcas.

Michael