Dmoz Fraud and Gaming The System

[Webzcas]

Still choosing to take the low road with you childish backhanded slaps - laugh it up while you can. But if I was you, I'd be resigning as a dmoz editor while you still have the opportunity to save face.



Cheers



Dave

Save face LOL.

Dave, looked in the mirror recently?

You are good I give you that. LOL

[ck8795]

kaus, if you have something to say, say it to me here in public.

Please don't send me any more PM's. I haven't opened that one, I'm about to delete it.

Unless what you've got to say you don't want to say in public. In that case it shouldn't be said!


Cheers



Dave

Not even worth the reply - GCG I sent you a pm with some advice on your submission and a second one which outlines what I mean. Hopefully you will actually read it...if not good luck anyway

[Fergie]

I won't defend DMOZ because, since I haven't been an editor or even come close to knowing how it works from the inside-out, I don't have enough DMOZ knowledge to base an opinion on! That being said, I do know Webscaz and have always found him to be an honest, hard working man.

AussieDave, if you sincerely think something's amiss, then be proactive. Become and editor and better understand the DMOZ process, and, should you find faults then, do something about it from within.

[Webzcas]

Waste of words Fergie.

Aussie Dave and his side kick are a couple of wanna be webmasters.

They have accomplished NOTHING in this industry and take delight in attacking those that they perceive to be in a position of power.

The fact that I find myself the focus of their attention, I find laughable.

I pity them and laugh at them rather than anything else.

Instead of coming up with the next garbled verbiage to spew on this thread which they have been F5'ing incessently every couple of mins to see a response. I have been more productive. I have written more content and continued to grow my sites.

Bryan actually coined a phrase which fits these two numpties very well.

It is called Affiliate Darwinism.

The more these people troll around, the less time they have for their sites, the less money they make, the quicker they are forced to get a real job/life, and they eventually disappear.

[Anthony]

We all disagree from time to time, but there is no need for this.

Enough of the name calling and insults.

[TheGamblingGuru]

Interesting thread to say the least...

Just went over and read your article Dave:

5. Editors have to review sites in the date order they were suggested - INCORRECT - Sites suggested by the members of the public are only one resource used by editors when finding suitable sites to list. Indeed many editors do not even bother looking at the suggestion pool. Furthermore, editors can choose which sites to review from the pool in whatever order they wish. It is true some editors review the pool in suggested date order. However many editors review sites from the pool if an accurate and unspammy title and description has been used by the person suggesting the site.

The RED statements above really concern me, how can anyone not view those particular statements of fact; so wrong, on so many levels? Seriously?

If that truly is the case then DMOZ is more screwed up than many webmasters even think it already is.

I'm applying this week to be an editor in the Gambling categories. You guys keep requesting for a few to become more proactive so that is what I actually intend to do.

Since I'm semi-retired I have plenty of time on my hands to devote to the DMOZ site.

If my editorship application should need a recommendation then I also would hope that both Webzcas and Michael would give it.

Lets see how this goes. Should be interesting!
____
____

[arkyt]

The more these people troll around, the less time they have for their sites, the less money they make, the quicker they are forced to get a real job/life, and they eventually disappear.

A real job? So doing affiliate oriented marketing isn't a "real" job? I reckon it does come pretty easy when you get in with the right bunch of guys/gals - get 2-3, in some cases 8+, sites each listed in dmoz, then interlink back and forth between them and rocket to the top of Google... I reckon that doesn't take much work at all - just a lot of hob-knobbing at the conferences every other month where you get to parade around like you are some kind of bigshots. Thats Laughable and quite frankly nothing short of a major farce!

... Paul resend that last email to my primary account the other bounced - thanks!

[Former Member 14]

Webzcas
It's my understanding, when one is accepted as a dmoz editor - or is that on the submission application, either way, one submits a site recommendation for listing.

Edit:
I'm very interested in knowing what was the site you recommended? Did it get listed? Was it rejected? Was there any issues relating to your recommendation?

Also what were the first three (3) sites you approved for the dmoz categories when you became an editor?

And did any of these three (3) sites get rejected? Were there any issues relating to these first three (3) listing recommendations?

Webzcas, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you actually did miss these direct questions.


Cheers



Dave

[Dominique]

Came across a Matt Cutts video on Dmoz. Doesn't say all that much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rej2TkVEehg

Dave, especially since I am listed in DMOZ I want to know what is going on there.

So when someone talks about corruption at the very top, I want to know the details. Maybe I don't want to be listed there. So far I haven't heard anything about anything at the top.

DMOZ is a nice back link, but most sites in there have enough back links and don't feel much if it disappears.

I see it as recognition of my 10 years of work. And I think what irks most people who have applied and are waiting is that they too have poured tons of effort in their sites, built something that is useful to visitors and deserve the recognition.

Unfortunately, it takes forever to get a reply back, and that is the case with most anything that is run by volunteers.

[GamTrak]

Interesting thread to say the least...

Just went over and read your article Dave:

The RED statements above really concern me, how can anyone not view those particular statements of fact; so wrong, on so many levels? Seriously?

If that truly is the case then DMOZ is more screwed up than many webmasters even think it already is.

I'm applying this week to be an editor in the Gambling categories. You guys keep requesting for a few to become more proactive so that is what I actually intend to do.

Since I'm semi-retired I have plenty of time on my hands to devote to the DMOZ site.

If my editorship application should need a recommendation then I also would hope that both Webzcas and Michael would give it.

Lets see how this goes. Should be interesting!
____
____

Good luck Rob!

Ok, after reading the site I also had some concerns about the way things are ran. IMO if the sites are selected by any other criteria other than date submitted then you will always have folks wondering if the system is indeed fair.

Please note that I do not have a dog in the fight, but want to be sure that I understand both sides of the issue that has been presented. To be honest Webcaz, your article did not help the situation as it relates to showing that the majority of the dealings at dmoz is above reproach because it seems to be a 'personal' editor preference of which sites even get looked at let alone approved.

I'm just saying....

[Jamie - RateMyCasino]

People can take this as they like, but I have sat back and read how this thread has panned out and it needs to be moved to unethical section. I am not taking either side as I have only heard good of Webzcas and find Dave to be very informative at times.

However, constant name bashing, poking each other with sticks and trying to have the last say all the time, isn't the way to solve this situation. I understand unethical reports should be posted or questioned, but acting like school bullys is total rubbish and a waist of time.

Its time to grow up people!

[TheCPA]

I've been following this thread and not entering the fray,....NOT because I have any silly fear of reprisal as someone mentioned, or because I find it INTERESTING as some have stated.

It's not interesting. It's so ******* stupid, it's just fun to watch!!

Sorry Dave, but Big B would not approve of your actions here. If you're so tight with him, and he agrees with you thoughts, then have him come here and say so.

We all understand the industry needs to be policed better, and there are COUNTLESS areas of coruption, and dishonesty. I certainly hope you guys are NOT put in charge of that!
You guys don't know how TO BALANCE your obsession.

You guys just seem to have some super warped ideology that says there is some way to make the business world on PLANET EARTH 1000% honest and free of coruption ON ALL LEVELS!

You're smoking some bad weed if you actually think chicken **** threads like this will make a tinkers damn worth of difference.

I don't like what the GPWA morphed into. I have been very vocal on that. To me, it had more meaning when Cindy owned it. It used to be proactive and highly beneficial to affiliates in the early days.

Now it's a commercial entity. The .org designation IMO is inappropriate.
That said, the new GPWA offers some things the original one didn't.
It's a matter of opinion as to the value.

If you don't like the place, don't use it, or use it to take advantage when you can. If you feel Micheal is corrupt, then don't use the place, but all this conspiracy bullshit is total nonsense.

Webcaz and "The Corf" both give a **** about the industy. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind on that whatsoever!!!!! Just because I PERSONALLY don't like everything that occurs doesn't make me RIGHT!!!
I can however voice my displeasure within reason, and I usually do just as I am doing now.
THIS THREAD IS BULLSHIT! Too many unfounded, uneducated remarks being made against some pretty upstanding people. Total CRAP, IMO.

Do I agree with everything they do? Hell NO!
When two people agree on everything, ONE OF THEM IS NOT NEEDED!!!

If I were an editor on DMOZ, you're damn right I'd make sure I had a site that met the perameters for DMOZ, and I'd list it. If someone is giving their time for free,.. then that's a reasonable perk.

Get over yourselves. It isn't the big deal you guys are making it out to be.

[arkyt]

It isn't the big deal you guys are making it out to be.

I think some of us believe that this is 10x as big as it is made it out to be here. Hence the passion to communicate what we see as wrong to the entire community. I know some would like to paint me and/or AussieDave as the bad guys in this thread - that we are out to try and bring down one of our fellow colleague(s) for no reason at all - thats simply insane!

If we didn't think we seen something worthy of being mentioned I know we wouldn't be wasting our time on it. This is not about taking any one down - least its not that for me - this is about trying to assure that each and every affiliate is given the same opportunities - fairness and equality for all!

Historically speaking, as with most issues in this industry; most people just don’t give a rats ass about much of anything and that’s always been the case ... As long as one feels as though an issue has no direct impact on them they will have little to no interest in it. Fact is this particular issue has an immediate impact on each and every one of us!

At the same time, I agree with you - this thread isn't going to change much in this industry and in that sense it might as well be viewed as simply bullshit. Course it did inspire the editor to do more editing in 24 hrs than he had done in over a year so maybe it hasn't been a total waste of time - a few more of our colleagues obtained a listing - maybe a few more will get one too.

I'll be eager to see what you think once all the details come out.

[Former Member 14]

Honesty hurts no one except perpetrators of lies.

If everything is above board and there's no gaming of the system, why the secrecy, why the labyrinth of BS and quasi justification. No need for it, just simple straight forward questions, answered with the truth and move on.

However it's seldom the case.

Instead, personal attacks and flames are the order of the day with every attempt to derail, discredit and or generally lead the thread into a huge blow up which effectively has it locked.

Why? Because in most cases THERE is something to hide, something is not Kosher and whoever is involved wants it shut down ASAP!



Cheers



Dave

[AK]

I want to mention that Dave is not the first person that has caught this and has been getting discussed for over a year now. It takes some nerve to open this up in the public like Dave has and respect someone finally did. It's obviously not ethical what webcaz has been caught doing but what can one do about it? I know of at least 10 other webmasters that have brought this up in private messaging..

I have kindly emailed Webcaz myself several times asking why Hotslot.org was not approved in the slot machine directory based on the fact it is one of the largest slot machine online highway sites out there etc and if you take a look what is listed a majority on there are simply just 1 page landing sites. I never mentioned his little scheme he has going as honestly I could care less assuming legit solid websites get listed as they should.

That does not seem to happen though but webcaz sites and his buddies seem to get approved quickly

PS,

I never did get a response from him

[Webzcas]

It's obviously not ethical what webcaz has been caught doing but what can one do about it?

What exactly have I been CAUGHT doing? Please deal with facts. Here let me help you and correct some of your misinformation. Furthermore if you have evidence of editor abuse please report it.

I have kindly emailed Webcaz myself several times asking why Hotslot.org was not approved in the slot machine directory based

That's nice. I don't seem to remember receiving said email. Anyhow that is a moot point, particularly as I have NEVER had permissions to edit in the Games\Gambling\Slots category in the directory.

That does not seem to happen though but webcaz sites and his buddies seem to get approved quickly

All the sites I have listed offer quality to the areas of the directory I have listed. I stand by each and every site I have listed and my reasoning for doing so. Again, if you have evidence of editor abuse, please report it.

If everything is above board and there's no gaming of the system, why the secrecy, why the labyrinth of BS and quasi justification. No need for it, just simple straight forward questions, answered with the truth and move on.

Do you really need to be spoon fed? Are you incapable of comprehending words that appear on your monitor? Because you certainly are coming across as if that is the case.

You have been told time and time and time and time again all and any information you have requested, which as an editor I am permitted to tell you. Not only that but Michael and also Kaus who also are editors have done the same. There are strict guidelines as to what can be divulged and what cannot. I did not make up these rules, DMOZ did. My editing history is an open book and available for ALL editors to view.

that we are out to try and bring down one of our fellow colleague(s) for no reason at all - thats simply insane!

The description of Affiliate Darwinism certainly suits you.

Course it did inspire the editor to do more editing in 24 hrs than he had done in over a year so maybe it hasn't been a total waste of time

Of course you did. Well done.

THIS THREAD IS BULLSHIT! Too many unfounded, uneducated remarks being made against some pretty upstanding people. Total CRAP, IMO.

Thank god for that. A voice of reason. I have boldened a very important point.

[Webzcas]

Sorry Dave, but Big B would not approve of your actions here. If you're so tight with him, and he agrees with you thoughts, then have him come here and say so.

I missed this. Very good point and having met Brian in person, I have come to the same conclusion.

[Webzcas]

Interesting thread to say the least...

Just went over and read your article Dave:

The RED statements above really concern me, how can anyone not view those particular statements of fact; so wrong, on so many levels? Seriously?

If that truly is the case then DMOZ is more screwed up than many webmasters even think it already is.

I'm applying this week to be an editor in the Gambling categories. You guys keep requesting for a few to become more proactive so that is what I actually intend to do.

Since I'm semi-retired I have plenty of time on my hands to devote to the DMOZ site.

If my editorship application should need a recommendation then I also would hope that both Webzcas and Michael would give it.

Lets see how this goes. Should be interesting!
____
____

Hi Rob, yep I am afraid that is the case. Editors are volunteers and are not forced to go through the suggestion pool. In my case though, I do try and go through them when I have the time. The gambling cats though do receive the most suggestions of which 95% are spammy sites, so it can be very tedious going through them

Excellent news about your application. Unfortunately us mere editors have no sway over approving new editors. However don't be too disheartened if your first application gets rejected. I only got accepted on my 2nd application and that was 3 years after my first LOL.

If you do get rejected, send me the application before you submit it again and I'll give you some pointers.

As long as you are open and honest regarding all and any sites you are affiliated with and show you can write clear and concise titles and descriptions for suitable sites for the cat you applied for, then you should be fine.

As a rule, dmoz meta's don't normally like approving new editors to the gambling branch - this thread is a very good example as to why - Michael and I were pretty much the exception to the rule as we provided anything and everything relating to our background in the industry.

However if it is a gambling cat you have gone for, make sure it is a small undeveloped one. That way you can be sure you will be able to prove your worth and obtain permissions in other cats along the road.

[Former Member 14]

THIS THREAD IS BULLSHIT!

That's your opinion and like everyone who has posted, I thank you for expressing it.

However if I based my actions on how you or most of my peers view issues like this - a general nonchalant, it doesn't affect me, I don't give a F##k attitude, we'd all be ignorant to the action of others who game the system to their benefit - in most instances at our expense.

If people view me with contempt for taking a stand against those who want to bend or manipulate their position of trust, I wont lose sleep over it. Frankly it's the reason I don't keep alliances because I wont look the other way, no matter what.

If it's unethical, it's wrong for everyone one, not just those outside the clique.

However know this...

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!

If that makes me full of sh#t...I suppose we just place different values on what's truly important in this life.



Cheers



Dave

[Betpartners]

Ok, like the CPA I have not got involved previously in this thread for a variety of raesons, I certainly did not refrain from commenting based on some sort of reprisal threat, water off a ducks back that, no I never got involved because in my opinion this was just a relentless attack on trusted webmasters that are helping out in the Industry and I expected that this thread would have been drowned out with a disgusted reaction from the webmaster community, that has not happened regretably.

So lets get down to the facts here and push through the smoke and mirrors.

AussieDave and Arkyt have accused Wezcas, Michael Corfman and Kaus of being corrupt, that is what they have alleged, it can be dressed up in any way you like but anyone reading the comments that have come before are left in no doubt as to the core of their allegations.

Michael, Kaus and in particular webzcas have denied completely these accustaions.

That is now the status on this thread.

The solution is very very easy, proof must be shown.

The GPWA or any organisation like this should never allow any allegations of corruptions to be mde without any proof backing them up, and if proof has been forthcoming then action should be taken, these allegations are far too severe to be allowed to just sit out there in cyberspace.

If Michael has been found guilty of corruption then he has no place running the GPWA and if Kaus and Webzcas are also found to be "gaming" the system as it has been put then they also should no longer be welcomed as members of the GPWA.

On the other hand if AussieDave and Arkyt who have made these very serious allegations are unable to back them up and their allegations are proven to be unfounded then they also should have no place being GPWA members, any other action sends out a message that you can come on here and accuse anyone of anything without proof, surely we do not want that sort of wild west mentality on this forum.

So thats it in a nutshell, AussieDave and Arkyt have made allegations, very serious allegations and they need to now back them up with hard cold facts rather than circumstantial opinion, if they do not, action must be taken.

If their allegations are proven, again action must be taken.

AussieDave and Arkyt can carry on making allageation all day long and Webscaz and the other accused editors can defend themselves all day long, wont make one bit of difference whatsoever, all it does is continue to fan the flames of this thread.

Proof, proof and proof that is all that is needed, it is not rocket science.

And yes I am calling for members to be removed from the GPWA, If false accusations have been made then AussieDave and Arkyt must be shown the door, If their allegations are proven, they need to be thanked and the Editors shown the door, including Michael if the allegations are proven.

But I think most members are tired with this thread and the way it started right in the beginning, and they, like me are now waiting for the proof to substantiate these serious allegtions.

Nothing else is important to this thread now.

Question now is

Is there any proof? and if there is when can we see it?