DMOZ Editor requiring info on where content came from for listing ??
 

Just recieved an email from a DMOZ editor after submitting one of my paysites to the directory about a week ago.

Has anybody else seen this sort of thing before ?
The guy wants me to tell him where I bought the content of 2 specific models.
These 2 models fit the bill for my site niche very very nicely so I'm wondering if he has a competing site....

-----------------------------

Greetings,

Regarding your submission to DMOZ:

URL: http://www....................
Title: .....................
Description: .............................................
username:........................
password:.....................
Submitted by: ........................
[................] at Jan 19, 2003 18:02:54 PST

Reviewer Notes:

All adult pay websites are now required by law to
display a U.S.C. 18 Section 2257 Compliance Notice.
This notice displays custodian of record contacts for
the models on your website. It shows that your website
is legitimate and using licensed or self produced
content with models of legal age.

Where did you acquire your picture content, in
particular, the content of the following 2 models?

(..........)http://www.................................jpg


and

(........)
http://www......................................jp g

Please get back to me so I can decide whether or not
your site can be listed at DMOZ.

Other than that minor issue listed above, content and
site looks fine.

Regards,
...........
DMOZ editor

------------------------------

If you have 2257 for those models, then just assure him that you have the records and remind him that only law-enforcement officials can demand those records.

Who was the editor? Maybe he's just new. The DMOZ guidelines are pretty clear the editors are not internet police.

SpaceAce

Sounds like he likes your stuff and wants the same content for his sites.

Yeah, the 2 models he asked about are clearly in their early to mid twenties.
There could be no doubt just by looking at their pics that they are well over 18.

are you kidding me ? they look 14

Yes thats what I was thinking Twisty,

I've emailed him back assuring him that I have copies of the model Id's and license agreements so lets see how it ends up..

Doesnt matter.

As a dmoz editor myself, and having read the guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not it pretty much says that if the content you're looking at is illegal but might actually fit the directory they're trying to get it listed in, for the editors to leave it alone for another editor/moderator where it isnt illegal for them to review the post.

As for wanting to know where your content came from, i dont think that is any of his business, his job isnt to make sure you have release forms or legal content on your site, his job is to ensure that the site you're submitting actually matches the directory you're submitting to and is a quality site.

However, each directory might have its own charter which they have to follow but i do not believe that it supercede the main guidelines.

I'd only tell him if you have a referral code for the content vendor ...

:eek7

Yeah something fishy there.. the guy probably either:

A) wants to know where you bought your content so he can buy some for himself.

B) knows where you got it & knows you didn't pay for it.

Not that I support "B", but I'm against divulging the protected source of "A" if its a competitive niche & the pics are as perfect for the position as you say. Soo heres a solution that will probably hander either situation (but :321GFY if you didnt pay for it).

IF YOUR TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR CONTENT SOURCE:

Hes not .gov, hes not a true authoritative figure really :) - So just give him a physical address your associated with and tell him all records are on file with the custodian of records there.

If he requests further information (like release forms, model ID etc) tell him that there are certain policies and procedures for requesting that material. You would like to know WHO is requesting this personal info from your models and require that the request comes comes in snail-mail form with copies of the materials being sent back to a non-POBox address :winkwink:


---------------------
Of, If you don't mind sharing your contnet source and the hours digging through pics to find that perfect one, then just go ahead and tell him "It's all on file with ABC Content".


But really, you should make a 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance notice listing that has a list of all the content suppliers you use -- and maybe some you plan to use in the future (to throw the competition for a loop) :)

Oh wow really? I thought anyone could request. Damn thats good to know. I was sort of wondering about that -- what if some crazy psycho killer porn surfer requested some model he/she was infatuated with... gets all kinds of additional info about her, including real full name :(

Yeah that makes more sense.

Other than that minor issue listed above, content and
site looks fine.

When he gives you more flak (because if he wants your content source he will -- he'll abuse his power for sure :1orglaugh) be sure to remind him of the above statement he made and the fact that only law enforement can request the documents (if thats true) for privacy reasons.

It is NOT within DMOZ guidelines to ask for such information.

Shark, please forward me the email through my editor feedback form and I will be happy to look into it further.

http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/send.cgi?toeditor=gigi

Thanks.

GiGi (lovin' the CashQuest2 thang, but also a Top Adult Editor at DMOZ)

:winkwink:

dmoz rather frowns on its volunteer editors abusing power, so if he presses it, I would first look at the requirements for the catagory you submitted to, to check and see if this is actually a listed requirement. If not (and I really doubt that it is) you might go one up on the catagory tree and email that editor and politely inquire if this is a legitimate request. That editor will be familiar with the guidelines for that branch of the directory and should know what to do.

notjoe, if the editor suspects that the models are underage, then they would not leave it for another editor. From the Editing Tips "Certain content is always illegal. The most obvious example is child pornography -- it is strictly prohibited from the directory."

hey gigi you are a meta adult editor right ?
pretty handy to push your porn sites, eh ?

Erm, no I am not a meta adult editor, I am a top level Adult Editor.

I've been editing at DMOZ for 3 years now DJ....good thing yer not an editor being the way your mind works....

If he only knew the half of it ;)

i am one.

a lot adult editors are pricks. they promote their own stuff and try not to list competitors, or give them shitty descriptions.

want names ? Seepatrick, t23, ffabris, etc. etc.

Hi all,

First of all, I am a meta editor at the ODP. I am also specifically involved with the Adult category.

A couple of points I need to clarify...

The editor who requested proof of age of models on a website was not acting according to accepted ODP editing procedure. If this happens to anyone else, feel free to contact me directly via ODP feedback:
http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/send.cgi?toeditor=ffabris

Secondly, it isn't very nice to suggest that an ODP editor is in some way using her editing rights out of self-interest. While I cannot deny that this has happened many times, it still isn't polite do suggest this of someone without evidence. Should you ever obtain evidence that someone is abusing their editing privs, please contact me at once with the details.

Ehm, can you give evidence to show that I or any of the others you named are promoting our own sites or not listing our competition?

ROTRFLMAO!!! OMG!! You are a piece of work!!

2 of those 3 don't even HAVE adult sites....

Get yer facts straight sweetie pie....as fab said....got proof? Please forward it to one of the Meta editors.

yeah yeah, say what you want, you know you'r in it for the money.

i did try to report it to [email protected] several times, but i guess metas dont give a damn either.

DarkJedi, surf to http://dmoz.org:8080/edoc/editall.html - pick any one of the names from that list that strikes your fancy and is also a meta (shown by the "meta" column), and send them feedback with your evidence.

Use the followjng to send feedback:
http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/send.cgi?toeditor=NAME
replace NAME with the name of the meta editor you have selected.

That's the staff email...not the metas email.....

Please contact any one of the following META editors:

rl2341
ettore
hotpink
Hudson

OR, if you are an editor, this abuse feedback form link will work for you:
http://dmoz.org:8080/editors/abuse.cgi?action=report

It's probaly Greenguy back on the block :1orglaugh

Oops, sorry fab....guess we were on the same wave length...

You, and everyone else at GFY now has many ways to report any abuse.

That's what they're there for....

Psst.. gigi, ffabris.. did you just drop this $$ ? ;)

Oh he was not? Well you could have fooled me on that one!

Well then I'm glad we've straightened that out then.

Well, it's true. While we do have standards specifying what sites we list, that isn't one of them. For the curious and/or interested:

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/adult/
http://dmoz.org/Adult/faq.html
http://dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/faq.html

A couple of years ago a thread came up in DMOZ where the editor happened to be the owner of the content and new for a fact the website had no licsence for it.

If I remember correctly, the advice given was an editor COULD refuse the site if he had 100% proof it was illegal, it just wasnt the job of editors to go looking for proof.

"Sites with unlawful content should not be listed in the directory, particularly those intent and substantially focused on making available and distributing illegal materials. Examples of content that is illegal in most jurisdictions include child pornography; material that infringes on intellectual property rights; material that advocates, solicits or abets illegal activity (such as fraud or violence) in specific instances; and material that is libelous. Factual and how-to information is generally NOT abetting illegal conduct unless its intent is to facilitate the immediate commission of a crime in a specific situation. "

Does this not clearly say "material that infringes on intellectual property rights" should not be listed in DMOZ?

Thats is correct.

Yes, that's what it says. However it does not say that editors should seek proof of age from webmasters - which is what the initial post was about (U.S.C. 18 Section 2257 deals with requiring proof of age in order to protect minors). Likewise it does not say that editors can or should contact webmastes in order to verify that they have a license to use images. As has already been noted here, it is not an editor's job to play the role of a cop.

IF an editor has 100% certainty of some kind of illegal situation (be it copyright theft or child porn or whatever), the correct action to take is to immediately notify a meta edior or ODP staff. The specific situation will then dictate what action will be taken. An editor should not unilaterally take action of any kind against the alleged violator.

I hope this clarifies the issue. :)

I would love to be a dmoz editor. I have been trying for years and I keep filling out the application on niche's that say they don't have an editor and which I know a lot about. I spent the ages filling out the form only to hit submit and be told that that category wan't accepting applications. Not even a rejection. It would be really nice if they would say that before you will in the application.

I would do a good job, wouldn't abuse it, have knowledge of a number of niche's that other webmasters don't, etc but can't see a way in.

Thanks Guys,

I am still waiting on a response from the editor.

If I dont hear back from him within the next 2 days or he presses the situation, I will use that editor feedback form you gave the address for gigi as you posted it first, thanks also to ffabris for the similar offer.

Ps, Just to alleviate any doubt, I did purchase the content and one of the sets happens to be from a provider that regularly posts here. The other is from a different provider so its clear to me that he wants to buy the same content and is not a provider.

Personally, I would give him the info unless it's really unique content. A good dmoz listing is well worth it.

Dmoz is a scam, inundated with enough self-promoting, self interested webmasters, continually jockying the listings to make sure their keyword laden descriptions appear prominently, and the names of other sites are devalued compared to their own. I've submitted 100's of sites since it's inception, all following the rules.

I've had one or two sites accepted in obscure categories, and that's about it.

That given, there are a few honest editors, somewhere there... good luck finding them tho...

I always thought it was funny how my sites were good enough for top link sites, and avs sites, but not dmoz.

Funnier yet how a lot of the webmaster I knew who were editors couldn't make it in the biz, and vanished

If you suck up the right way, then you'll get listed, perhaps

When it started, it was a great source of traffic, according to those who got in on the action, I have a couple domains which I bought that had listings, they get maybe 1-2 hits per day from dmoz and 6-7 hits from associated search engines

Maybe you have to grease the palms of those in the know ;) that's probably what I was doing wrong... no grease