Scientology bushwhacks Open Directory Project
ptsc
I recommend a volunteer COMMITTEE attempts to edit this section.
This is the URL to do so.
http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/apply.cgi?where=Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Scientology
Do not submit frivolous or redundant applications and note beforehand that the
section requires three new URLs suggested by you. Personally I used
http://lisatrust.net for the top section, http://www.lisamcpherson.com for the
top section and http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas because it's not there
and really should be.
You can see what happened below, and that Scientology has effectively hijacked
the Opposing Views section in the last couple days.
On 15 Nov 2001 16:06:57 -0800, ronthe...@yahoo.co.uk (Chris Owen) wrote:
>ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:<sbe6vtcso2ffhldcs...@4ax.com>...
>> Pop "Scientology" into Google and every site on the first page of hits will now
>> be Scientology-owned spam pages.
>As I've explained in a previous post, this is because Google takes its
>top hits from the Open Directory Project listings
>(http://www.dmoz.org), which have been thoroughly stuffed by an
>OSA-connected editor. Google quite effectively filters out
>Scientology spam pages but it's inherently vulnerable to stuffing from
>the ODP - which OSA of course has realised and taken advantage of.
This is interesting, and yes, I've read that. However, Google is not terribly
effectively filtering them out any more.
In fact, I received a fascinating response to an attempt to apply for the
Opposing Views --> Scientology directory today, very interesting in light of the
fact that it HAS no editor at all.
---
Dear Rob Clark,
Thank you for your interest in becoming an Open Directory Project editor!
Although we would like you to join us as a volunteer editor, you have
chosen a category that is already well represented, or is broader than
we typically assign to a new editor. We would encourage you to re-apply
for a category that has fewer editors or is smaller in scope, in order
to increase your chances of being accepted.
Feel free to reapply by submitting an application in another area.
If you wish to re-apply, you must fill out another application.
Please do not reply to this email.
Regards,
The Open Directory Project
Additional reviewer comments:
Nice name there, O Galactic Overlord.
This category is too big for a brand new editor. Please choose a subcategory
that interests you, and try again.
---
I did this without consultation with anyone else, partly in the hopes that
exactly this would happen. Some things that make me suspicious (though are
probably just related to the relative state of disrepair this directory is in
from having no direct input from Scientology critics) are these:
http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Scientology/
A section of Dead Agent/Libel pages have been added to the very top of this
section, as if dead agenting and libel of critics is the primary purpose of the
page, directly beneath the other sections and set off by itself:
http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Scientology/Opposing_Views_Evaluated/
The Lisa McPherson Trust is buried in a subsection:
http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Scientology/Suspicious_Deaths/
Not only has the Scientology-run section been moved up to the top of the
"Opposing Views" section, but it has been added in several languages:
See also:
Society: Religion and Spirituality: Scientology (826)
This category in other languages:
French (8)
German (54) Italian (2)
Norwegian (8)
Portuguese (2) Spanish (7)
Swedish (14)
As a result, the pro-Scientology sites which have just been added (and which are
used by Google to select page rank) effectively overwhelm the section itself.
So when the Open Directory Project tells me the "Opposing Views --> Scientology"
section is "well-represented" what they mean is that it is well represented by
SCIENTOLOGISTS.
ptsc
roger gonnet
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> a écrit dans le message de news:
2s39vtg5v8fmfrob4...@4ax.com...
Very interesting. It's evident that the sonsofabitch could have someone in.
roger
>
> ptsc
Heffer
net> wrote:
>Anyone else who wants to try to take action is welcome.
Open Directory my Ass - just another Yahoo wannabe. Still,
like Yahoo and others, a site to be ignored. I noticed that
the "In the courts" section said that it needed an editor.
Heffer
Elizabeth Ann Cox
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
x <naa...@vhost.shocking.com> wrote in message
news:3bf4...@news2.lightlink.com...
> ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
> > Anyone else who wants to try to take action is welcome.
>
> > I recommend a volunteer COMMITTEE attempts to edit this section.
>
> ...is it a sekrit committee? :)
>
> Perhaps people just don't know how to make good sites. Here's few tips:
>
> 1. Lear what others has already done.
> 2. Learn how search engines works. Pay attention on title, meta
descripcion and meta keywords.
> 3. Define your target group, meaning of your site and principle.
> 4. Most people don't search for Scientology, but they search everythig
else. Try to reach them with everything else.
> Almost any subject will do, it's not hard to find general subjects that
links into Scn.
> 5. Every page must offer an entracne into your site. Every page must have
planned title tags, meta descripcions
> and keywords.
> 6. Learn the writing technics of printed media to make your site more
readable.
> 7. Keep on searching the new ideas for context.
> 8. Keep the language simple, so that even a person who speaks english as
second language can understund your words.
> 9. Be discreet, visitors may come from diffirent countries and cultures.
> 10. Keep your target group in mind. Consider how they underestund,
missunderstund or react in your every word.
> Assume that the reader doesn't have previous knowledge of the Scientology.
> 11. Avoid Scientology jargon and other terminology. Assume that readers
see your site first time.
> 12. Is the structure of your site logical? Are links attempting? Learn to
express Scientology terms in common
> language.
> 13. Don't preach. Be sunny and humoristic.
> 13. Remember that you don't have a permanent audience - they keep their
fingers all the time on their mouses.
> 14. Be honest of where your readers are now. Don't write the way that your
readers would already be there where you
> want them to be.
> 15. Sites pointed out to Scientologists should not sound overly
critisizing.
> 16. Don't mix material targetted to scientologists and non-scientologists.
Keep the pages to diffirent groups
> separate, preferable on an other domain.
> 17. If possible use evidence and certificates.
> 18. Use space, small paragraphs, titling and if possible, small grapfics
and pictures i.e. all techniques of a
> good magazine.
> 19. Every idividual page should be short. Edit long articles into
diffirent pages.
> 20. Check, abridge, re-write, check, change, re-valuate again and again.
It's also important to ask comments from
> others. Try to think what your listener thinks when your describe
Scintology terminology.
> 21. All your pages should be registered into eight (8) biggest search
engine, not just the front page.
> If you have time, read how you can make more of your pages from:
http://virtualpromote.com
> 22. Try to have as good ranking as you can in the listings of search
engines, pay a close attention on search words
> people use.
> 23. Re-valuate your title tags, meta descripcions and text, after you have
found more information how people use
> search engines.
> 24. Use forms, so that people can contact you. Not just mailto link.
> 25. Link to other critical sites, especially into those areas that you
don't have in yours.
> 26. Check that your pages work fast and reliable even on slow connections
and old browsers.
> 27. Check, that your pages are readable, working and easy to navigate,
even if the graficview is turned down from
> browser settings. Also notice that all browsers don't support java or
javascript and many people has turned them
> off in new browsers.
> 28. If you produce more than few pages and if you can afford, get your own
domain.
> 29. Don't be too ambitious if you don't have enough resources. Remember
that you can become net addict.
> 30. Order newsletters and conferece bulletins.
> 31. Keep contact to other critics to get courage and new ideas as well as
to learn more.
> 32. Buy Internet magazines, so you would stick on the development and
learn how to use new products.
>
>
>
> --
> spt
Tilman Hausherr
wrote in <3bf51f12...@news2.lightlink.com>:
DMOZ is a good site. We need people who can volunteer for a sub-section.
The sad story is that the previous editor ("supersp") somehow dropped
out without warning.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html
ptsc
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:17:05 GMT, hef...@scientologylies.com (Heffer)
>wrote in <3bf51f12...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:03:26 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT
>>net> wrote:
>>>Anyone else who wants to try to take action is welcome.
>>Open Directory my Ass - just another Yahoo wannabe. Still,
>>like Yahoo and others, a site to be ignored. I noticed that
>>the "In the courts" section said that it needed an editor.
>DMOZ is a good site. We need people who can volunteer for a sub-section.
>The sad story is that the previous editor ("supersp") somehow dropped
>out without warning.
DMOZ is NOT "just another Yahoo wannabe." For that matter, you can't "ignore"
it, since page rank in the Open Directory Project's pages is a CRITICAL aspect
of how pages are ranked in Google.
If you use Google, you use dmoz.org.
ptsc
Michael 'Mike' Gormez - www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
>Anyone else who wants to try to take action is welcome.
I tried awhile back to become editor for the suspisious deaths section
without successes.
Mikey
--
"Ron once said that if you make a person confront themselves it
would make them sick. I did, one day in conversation and after
about five minutes my guinea pig vomited. Validation by Ron!"
http://members.ams.chello.nl/mgormez/fun/pig.txt
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Early on in the so-called "Open Directory" project's existence I applied to
be the editor for the Ambient music section, and was sent a form letter
similar to below, saying that I was somehow underqualified for the spot.
The role remained untaken for over a year, and so I reapplied, and was given
the same exact email in response; when I asked after the denial of this, and
why noone had been designated still, I received no reply, though the message
was indeed read (return receipts, don'tcha know).
Perhaps some folks are already designated as "unacceptable" hm? After all,
I've been on the Bad List with Co$ since at least 1987.
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message
news:2s39vtg5v8fmfrob4...@4ax.com...
Heffer
<til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>DMOZ is a good site. We need people who can volunteer for a sub-section.
>The sad story is that the previous editor ("supersp") somehow dropped
>out without warning.
You mean people actually use it? I've only ever seen it
twice. Yesterday and some years past when I browsed to
it somehow. But then I'm biased. I find indexes rarely
contain what I want, and all search engines are crap
except Altavista, which is the only engine that knows
what "$25" means when I'm looking for "$25"
Heffer
ptsc
Altavista is now selling rankings, which Google never has. Google uses dmoz.org
when showing pages of hits. Any page of hits will have references to pages
which are on dmoz, which is semi-mirrored to directory.google.com.
Incidentally they appear to universally reject all applications for editors for
that board, and I have some reasons for that that don't particularly satisfy me
and sound trumped-up.
The new story is that apparently the person running it (although not listed as
an editor) is the "Senior Editor" for the entire "Religion & Spirituality"
section, which like Serm...@aol.com seems probably like it ensures someone
biased toward cults because they're a religious nut themselves.
ptsc
Tilman Hausherr
wrote in <3bf69bc7...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:24:32 +0100, Tilman Hausherr
><til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
>>DMOZ is a good site. We need people who can volunteer for a sub-section.
>>The sad story is that the previous editor ("supersp") somehow dropped
>>out without warning.
>
>You mean people actually use it? I've only ever seen it
>twice.
DMOZ is licensed to other search engines, for example to google. You use
it, without know that you do :)
Michael 'Mike' Gormez - www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
Here is the reply I got. Forgot which sites I had submitted for the
suspicious deaths index
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 06:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: staf...@dmoz.org
To: mgo...@chello.nl
Subject: Open Directory application - mgormez
Cc: ad...@dmoz.org (Open Directory Project)
Dear Mike Gormez,
Thank you for your interest in becoming an Open Directory Project editor.
After careful review, we have decided not to approve your application at
this time. The most common reasons a reviewer will deny a new application
include, but are not limited to,
* Incomplete application. Insufficient information has been provided in
some fields including reason, affiliation and/or Sample URLs.
* Improper spelling and grammar.
* Sample URLs are inappropriate for the category which one has applied to
edit. They may be too broad, too narrow, completely out of scope, poor
quality, or in a language inappropriate for the category. All non-English
sites are listed in the World category. Applications for World categories
that include sites only in English will be denied. Likewise, applications
for World categories that include sample URLs in languages other than the
one appropriate for the applied category will be denied.
* Not properly disclosing affiliations with websites that are, or have the
potential of being, listed in the category.
* Titles and descriptions of sample URLs (and other information provided)
were subjective and promotional rather than unbiased and objective. ODP
editors do not rank or write website reviews. ODP editors provide
objective and unbiased descriptions of websites and their content.
* Self-Promotion. Application which leads us to believe that the candidate
is interested primarily in promoting his/her own sites or those with which
the applicant is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should
not be used to circumvent the site submission process. If this is an
applicant's motivation for joining, then we ask him/her not to apply.
Editors found to be inappropriately promoting their own site will be
promptly removed.
Due to the large number of applications we get every day, we are unable to
provide personal responses to every application or to respond to inquiries
about why you were rejected. If a reviewer chose to provide additional
comments to you, they will be given in the "Reviewer Comments" section
below.
Your willingness to volunteer is greatly appreciated and perhaps we will
be able to utilize your talent in the future.
Regards,
The Open Directory Project
Reviewer Comments:
ptsc
Here's mine. Rather than boilerplate, it was more specifically tailored
flagrantly bogus excuses and lies. Note that at least one person responded with
apparent knowledge of some of the silliness.
Incidentally, this is partially due (according to other correspondence I'm not
making public yet) to previous controversies involving the Scientology section.
I'm not entirely certain of the nature of the controversy, but I recall vague
allegations that Open Directory project editor "andir" was caught removing
critical sites; however, these allegations when I heard them were unfounded.
Anyone knowing of whether or not this is true or not, and whoever made the
allegations in the first place, is invited to respond. Apparently, this
previous controversy has tainted the Open Directory project editors against
Scientology critics, so whether the allegations are true or not, their source
and the origin of the controversy is important.
http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/apply.cgi?where=Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Scientology
---
Dear Rob Clark,
Regards,
The Open Directory Project
Additional reviewer comments: