DMOZ Extortion Does Exist!

[incrediblehelp]

According to a new thread by Jeremy Shoemaker (Shoe money) it appears DMOZ Extortion does exist:

Dmoz Extortion

What does everyone think?

[chowell]

I love the great example that Shoemoney provided, including the evidence that he was listed in DMOZ before the "extortion" attempt.

The directory has been corrupt for several years now. This could be the biggest story to-date, so maybe we'll see some changes (finally).

[incrediblehelp]

Well I wish he would out the guy so we would know for sure that it is a DMOZ editor.

[chowell]

I doubt he could out the guy for fear of a possible lawsuit.

[Dubbya]

You'll almost always find corruption where opportunities for corruption exist.

It's disappointing to see a once useful and relevant directory, with limitless potential fall prey to this sort of thing.

I feel badly for the honorable and ethical few who, in payment for their hard work, have received nothing more than a black eye.

[tomcatuk]

Er, the blog post doesn't actually provide anything other than an unsubstantiated claim. Why not name the DMOZ editor, show a copy of the e-mail, provide the offending editors' e-mail address (thereby making his life hell regardless of whether or not the ODP admins take action or not) etc etc etc.

If I were to put my cynical hat on, I would perhaps suggest this is at it's root, just an attempt to get visitors to the blog as this would be "news" in the SEO sphere. Without evidence, sorry, but it isn't anything at all. Jaan - I'm surprised at you!

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by tomcatuk

Er, the blog post doesn't actually provide anything other than an unsubstantiated claim. Why not name the DMOZ editor, show a copy of the e-mail, provide the offending editors' e-mail address (thereby making his life hell regardless of whether or not the ODP admins take action or not) etc etc etc.

If I were to put my cynical hat on, I would perhaps suggest this is at it's root, just an attempt to get visitors to the blog as this would be "news" in the SEO sphere. Without evidence, sorry, but it isn't anything at all. Jaan - I'm surprised at you!

Yeah I agree tomcatuk and I mentioned that in an above post. Would like more info than just this claim, hopefully he will post it.

As far as link baiting it could be, but he gets plenty of traffic and links so not sure he needs it.

[rumblepup]

One thing that Shoe is, is an expert on getting traffic. However, this post was updated with information recently, so I would suggest you guys check it out again.

I know Jeremy, and the one thing you can always count on is that he is honest. He can care less if you believe him or not. Also, he makes no claims whatsoever on being a competent SEO guy. Again, doesn't know, doesn't care.

[incrediblehelp]

Interesting offer from Jeremy:

Dmoz Editors - Come Out Come Out - ShoeMoney™

[SemAdvance]

15 hours ago #

Jeremy Schoemaker

"Marcin:

I did post that... before shoemoney.com was ever even up. I did get replies from your corrupt ass editors and I did pay them to get some sites in. I still pay to get sites in.

The sites I paid to have in are still in. I never paid to have shoemoney.com in. You guys evidently assumed that that was the domain.

The REALLY funny thing is the DMOZ editor that posted that red note is Banned from digitalpoint forums for making douplicate accounts to defend DMOZ (making it look like multiple people were supporting dmoz editors)

I have never hid the fact I have paid to get sites in.

In the end the facts still remain I got a letter that I had to pay or my site would be removed then it was removed."

Found here

DMOZ Extortion - Google Blogoscoped Forum

That shoe participates in corruption and then cries foul is just like a Mike Vick apology.

Both are frickin lame..

Admitting in a public blog you participate in corruption is brilliant to boot

Don't do the crime... if you can't do the time

[incrediblehelp]

Great post SEM I had no idea. I hope someone calls him on this on his blog or show.

[SemAdvance]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Great post SEM I had no idea. I hope someone calls him on this on his blog or show.

In a way I am sad that I felt the need to post it.

I like Jeremy alot ...very smart marketer...

but it comes down to participating in corruption...which only allows it to continue.

One then cannot later say... oh boo hoo it bit me in the arse, and it's not fair.

Much the same reason we do not pay kidnappers .....

Shoe should have known better.....

[Duncan Pollock]

Well, I'm not trying to disagree with Shoemaker, but he isn't really giving proof that he was listed (the link he provides [to the WayBack machine] doesn't work) and he doesn't seem to be interested in taking the action he ought to take.
Assuming that the self-professed editor exists, Shoemaker should contact DMOZ and report the incident. Even though the barrel is large enough to contain some rotten apples, the commitment of its senior editors (let alone the majority of the category ones), is unquestionably to root out anyone who's guilty of malpractice. Moreover, every editor has to demonstrate his/her ability to process submissions in compliance with the DMOZ standards. It isn't easy to become an editor (let alone climb the ranks) and any deletion of a listing has to be accompanied by a reason. Obviously, something like "the siteowner won't pay me" isn't going to work for a second, is it?

Duncan

PS. Although I resigned from DMOZ when my real estate business started to grow significantly, I spent three years as an editor and was finally managing close to 10,000 listings. Believe you me, you're not going to get very far (if at all) if you begin to play games.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Duncan Pollock

Well, I'm not trying to disagree with Shoemaker, but he isn't really giving proof that he was listed (the link he provides [to the WayBack machine] doesn't work) and he doesn't seem to be interested in taking the action he ought to take.
Assuming that the self-professed editor exists, Shoemaker should contact DMOZ and report the incident. Even though the barrel is large enough to contain some rotten apples, the commitment of its senior editors (let alone the majority of the category ones), is unquestionably to root out anyone who's guilty of malpractice. Moreover, every editor has to demonstrate his/her ability to process submissions in compliance with the DMOZ standards. It isn't easy to become an editor (let alone climb the ranks) and any deletion of a listing has to be accompanied by a reason. Obviously, something like "the siteowner won't pay me" isn't going to work for a second, is it?

Duncan

PS. Although I resigned from DMOZ when my real estate business started to grow significantly, I spent three years as an editor and was finally managing close to 10,000 listings. Believe you me, you're not going to get very far (if at all) if you begin to play games.

I was an editor for several years with editing priviliges for all the US ... and there were rumors, of course, of this sort of corruption. Duncan is right; the upper level editors are very serious about rooting this out, and would be more likely to err on the side of caution and fire an editor rather than leave one there who might be corrupt. They don't have to give a reason to the fired editor so I don't see how DMOZ would be vulnerable to any sort of lawsuit.

Cheers, MJ

[mac1234]

Unbelievable if this happens i thought dmoz was free listing directory with few editors

[tomcatuk]

The more I read on this subject, and boy is it in a lot of places, the more it just looks like link bait - and very successful too. I'd imagine the traffic & extra links probably easily outweigh the value of a (supposedly) lost DMOZ backlink that wasn't paid for. I feel bad posting about it!

[martty]

lol - I have been away for a while and did not get a chance to respond earlier.

The facts always get in the way of a good story. Any editor can look at the URL history and knows the facts.

Shoemoney's site was permanently banned from DMOZ way back in 2005 as he attempted to offer a bribe. The site was briefly wrongly listed for 3 weeks before the mistake was realised during the recovery from teh big crash late last year.

He has a track record of link baiting.

This episode is just a lie he made up to get links and traffic to his site. It obviousy worked as look at all the people who fell for it.

[coolguy27]

Why does DMOZ not looking for this corrupt editors? Hmm... Maybe they themselves are corrupt.. Their reputation are ruined... Why to pay for inclusion if their directory in first place was for free inclusion.... Is there some big financial problem here?

[martty]

If you have evidence of a corrupt editor(s), please provide it and that editor will be removed. I would hate to think how many times this has been asked for in response to the claims and no one ever comes up with the goods (and please don't point out that old corrupt editor blog --- been there, done that, its old news).

Why would anyone be stupid enough to pay to be listed in DMOZ? Most that offer (like Shoemoney) get banned permanently. Those who claim they paid never come back with any evidence .... don't figure?

[Stu Wright]

Originally Posted by coolguy27

Why to pay for inclusion if their directory in first place was for free inclusion.... Is there some big financial problem here?

Is anything really free on the net? If I ever get to advertise for free, I enjoy it while it lasts and expect that one day the money making potential is realised.

I have tried to submit to DMOZ on several occasions and never even had a reply!

Stu

[martty]

Originally Posted by Stu Wright

I have tried to submit to DMOZ on several occasions and never even had a reply!

DMOZ doesn't reply. You get a thank you confirmation screen after the suggestion.

If you have submitted on several occasions you have only put your site at a disadantage.

[nnacho]

Originally Posted by martty

If you have submitted on several occasions you have only put your site at a disadantage.

If that is true, someone could do it if they want your site getting disadvantage

[tomcatuk]

Originally Posted by nnacho

If that is true, someone could do it if they want your site getting disadvantage

Yeah, that might work but it would be quite a lot of effort. The saboteur might have submitted your site when you haven't got around to it and then you could get listed anyway - I doubt your competitors would want that to happen!

The editor gets the submitters IP address though, so it could be spotted if (and it's a very big if) such a situation arose.

[martty]

Originally Posted by nnacho

If that is true, someone could do it if they want your site getting disadvantage

DMOZ is well aware of that possibility.

There is NEVER a need to submit a site any more than once. Any more than that will harm your chances of an editor reviewing it.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by martty

If you have submitted on several occasions you have only put your site at a disadantage.

I don't agree at all. When I was an editor, and I never treated multiple submissions that were months apart any differently than single submissions. And I never heard other editors indicate that they did either. A site that submitted more frequently might be annoying, but the site was still added or not based on quality.

Most of the time a quality site that is not added is simply in an area that has no regular editor. If there *is* an editor, there is nothing wrong with writing a polite note asking if there is some reason a site has not been added and asking if there is something that should be changed. The chances of getting a reply are slim to none, but when I received emails from submitters, I did go and look at their sites. We were encouraged to add all quality sites.

If there is not an editor in the category, follow the breadrumb up the directory until you find one and try dropping a polite note to them.

Cheers, MJ

[martty]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I don't agree at all. When I was an editor, and I never treated multiple submissions that were months apart any differently than single submissions.

How did you know a site has been submitted multiple times or not (unless to multiple categories)?
Everytime a site is resubmitted, it just overwrites the previous submission with the new date, so if an editor sorts the pool by date of submission, the site moves to the back -- ie its put the site at a disadvantage.

Also, if you recall the internal DMOZ forums - there is a sticky thread in which editors request the banning of IP address from which multiple submissions are made from. ie they are not going to be able to submit again from that IP

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by martty

How did you know a site has been submitted multiple times or not (unless to multiple categories)?
Everytime a site is resubmitted, it just overwrites the previous submission with the new date, so if an editor sorts the pool by date of submission, the site moves to the back -- ie its put the site at a disadvantage.

Actually, submissions were not overwritten by the earlier ones ... as you worked through the list, you saw the earlier submissions. Or vice versa, if you work from oldest to newest. If there are lots of sites to review in a category, en editor wouldn't even notice the repetition until they'd added or rejected the site.

Originally Posted by martty

Also, if you recall the internal DMOZ forums - there is a sticky thread in which editors request the banning of IP address from which multiple submissions are made from. ie they are not going to be able to submit again from that IP

If a poor quality site is submitted frequently it would be considered spamming and it might irritate the editors enough to ask for a ban of submissions by the IP address, but submissions that are 6 months apart were not annoying; they were understandable in light of how few editors were available to review submissions.

DMOZ editors are not unreasonable, and they know that a site that was rejected 6 months ago might have been changed enough to warrant a revisit.

If you submit to a category that has an editor and it isn't added, chances are it was rejected ... and I wouldn't suggest submitting again unless the site has been highly improved. And then I would do it for 6 months or more later.

Better yet: become an editor. If you have the ability to edit, and you prove that in the application process, there's a good chance at acceptance.

It's worth a go and it's a great way to give back to the Internet community.

Cheers, MJ

[Final Expense Leads]

Really nice commentary mj. More reasoned and informative than anything else I've read on the subject at DP or v7n.

Thanks for taking the time to counter the unthinking majority.

Cheers!

Dennis

[Kloans]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I don't agree at all. When I was an editor, and I never treated multiple submissions that were months apart any differently than single submissions. And I never heard other editors indicate that they did either. A site that submitted more frequently might be annoying, but the site was still added or not based on quality.

Most of the time a quality site that is not added is simply in an area that has no regular editor. If there *is* an editor, there is nothing wrong with writing a polite note asking if there is some reason a site has not been added and asking if there is something that should be changed. The chances of getting a reply are slim to none, but when I received emails from submitters, I did go and look at their sites. We were encouraged to add all quality sites.

If there is not an editor in the category, follow the breadrumb up the directory until you find one and try dropping a polite note to them.

Cheers, MJ

I agree with you mjtaylor. Most quality sites are added if they are in the right category and there is an editor. The category I took over didn't have an editor in it for about 9 months so when I took over I had to sort through 9 months of submissions first. I was actually really surprised that there was so much activitiy within DMOZ once I became an editor. Back to your point, if a site that I didn't accept asked me why I didn't accept it I would surely respond and make a suggestion. But there are far to many sites out there that submit to the wrong category for me to do that voluntarily. Plus I don't want to open myself up for the negative e-mail.

[martty]

Originally Posted by Kloans

. Plus I don't want to open myself up for the negative e-mail.

There was a thread a few years ago in the internal editors forum about repeated death threats that an editor got from the owner of a christian site that the editor send a friendly email to about why it was not going to be listed, but with some suggestions .... don't figure!