Agreed, I would like to second you. But why concentrate on one category only? There are more categories, which would need an even more urgent fixing, really.

Also, what are your suggestions on how to "fix" a category?

Good point, I noticed that youtube.com had been submitted to almost every category. though only a few have passed so far. There are so many domains in the adware category that it makes me wonder if adware owners / developers are trying to poison the category. If they are it is working.

One possible resolution: Monitor users' herd mentality. For instance, domain x is submitted for inclusion in the Adware category. 30 users vote against it (legitimately because it is only an ad site) and 3 users vote for it (incorrectly). Obviously those 3 users, plus the one that submitted the original category suggestion, "don't get it". They should have a "No" vote automatically placed against them. Too many "no" votes and the user is no longer allowed to vote.

Obviously, in the context of democracy this is unfair. But this, what we're trying to achieve here is not a democracy. A porn site is a porn site and an adware site is an adware site. If you cannot tell the difference, then you should no be allowed a vote.

Interesting discussion!

"30 users vote against it (legitimately because it is only an ad site) and 3 users vote for it (incorrectly)."
If it would be so easy! To identify a site as Adware requires relatively much efforts. One had to analyze the web pages, if they introduce any AX controls or other methods to "distribute applications which display advertisements without user's knowledge or choice". Further, one had possibly to download (all!) programs offered there and to install them to see if this is one of the "applications which display advertisements without user's knowledge or choice".
Nearly nobody would take these efforts just to give the right vote for a suspect site. Only someone, who made "bad" experiences with the site regarding "applications which display advertisements without user's knowledge or choice" would eventually be able to submit and vote - in the right or wrong way...
Under these circumstances I would expect the Adware category to stay nearly empty forever...

Even more, what is an "application which displays advertisements without user's knowledge or choice"? What does "distribute applications" mean, what does this include and what not? Do I usually have the choice to decide what advertisements I want to see? Do I usually even have the chance to know that advertisements will appear, and of what kind??? So again, what is the difference between Advertisement and Adware? Any advertisement is displayed by some kind of method and/or media, being an "application" of whatever type (webpage, software program, e-mail, ...). There seems to be a big grey zone.

Or should we go for Wikipedia's definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware
Is a site to be tagged already as Adware, if they distribute two Adware applications between 500 or 5000? When is the "Adware level" reached? Etc. etc.

"A porn site is a porn site and an adware site is an adware site."
Really? So you would say that e.g. playboy.com is incorrectly categorized, right?
@ntrv, as you seem to have a relatively clear picture under what circumstances a site can be tagged as Adware, can you please explain this more in detail, maybe with some examples? Thanks in advance.

Otherwise: "If you cannot tell the difference, then you should no be allowed a vote."
(Ahem, honestly, I do not know the difference yet to its full, so I am not allowed to vote anymore. )

Maybe a better idea would be to allow the community to vote users down. For instance, rotblitz, I believe most people would agree that your submissions to add Hate/Discrimination and Religious to stbernard.com would be way off base.
http://domain.opendns.com/stbernard.com

From reading their website I do not see any Hate, Discrimination, nor Religious views being expressed. Only the company name that references a Saint. Submitting these tags for community review is a waste of the community's time. The goal of community tagging within OpenDNS is not to "punish" or express ideology, it is for accuracy.

Well, OpenDNS can be labeled that way too because of the way one site is classified.

If StBernard really does have a human tagging system as well, then I don't think its fair to label them that way for what could have honestly been some sort of mistake.

Well, if it is more than one incident....I would tend to believe they have some people who are involved with their tagging system that are discriminating.

Interesting.

Incidentally, the "Adware" category that this whole thread was about in the beginning according to OpenDNS.com is defined as, "Sites that distribute applications which display advertisements without user's knowledge or choice. Does NOT include sites which serve advertising". Emphasis not added by me, it is there per the definition. I don't think that leaves much room for discussion as to whether or not sites like fastclick or doubleclick belong in there. Clearly, OpenDNS' intent is NOT to have sites like that listed in the Adware category.

@ntrv
"OpenDNS' intent is NOT to have sites like that listed in the Adware category."
Agreed and accepted. But - don't they "display advertisements without user's knowledge or choice" using HTTP as application...? You see?

@infinity306
"...have the category discription pop up at time of submission asking them to check a checkbox saying they have read the category decription..."
Great, that's a brilliant idea! But the definitions/descriptions would need to be even more elaborated. The current ones can often be interpreted in such or such a way, like the one for Adware, for example...

I think a major part of the problem is being able to upload lists of domains to be tagged, not sure it's a logical thing to have right now. although they still theorectically have to be approved by a tagging moderator at some time.. it seems that sometimes the moderators are just going by the yes votes, and not even looking at the site in question and making a decision if it fits the category or not based on the actual site..
maybe it should require at least 2 moderators to approve a site? obviously as with the fbcdn.net incorrect approval as instant messaging that was removed earlier this week, some moderators have been approving sites incorrectly..
http://forums.opendns.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=4069&page=1#Item_23

Then there is the "without the user's knowledge or consent" bit. How many people installing downloaded software read the software description, let alone the EULA/TOS? How many people read the instructions, directions, help files, information, or what have you, for ANYTHING? I do not mean to make a defense for badvertising crapplications, but most people never know what they've agreed to when clicking "Yes", install/sign me up.

If HTTP is an application, what is its file name? HTTP is a protocol. A web browser is an example of an application that uses that protocol.

I do not have Windows 7. Even if I did, Windows is not an application, it is an operating system. .NET is not an application, it is a run time environment. XML and XHTML are file formats. Java is an operating system extension which runs applications written in its own format.

The definition of adware that OpenDNS uses is a web site that lets you download software which, when installed in your system will display ads without your approval and without you even knowing that it is the application displaying it. For example, the software may install a program that is loaded automatically when the system starts up, runs quietly in the program without the average user even knowing and then seemingly out of the blue displays an ad.

A web site displaying advertising on its pages is not adware, no matter how you look at it.

And I think you know all that, mein Freund.

See, the hard part is, is that there HAVE been cases of "legitimate" "advertising" URLs (read: pagead2.googlesyn....) - which contain "ads" that lead to and/or "spread" adaware content...so THAT is largely why some legitimate ad-servers (what you consider, not adware) within that filtered list....

Your better bet, would be to contacting these ad-server companies, and get them to properly screen their ads....

There's been many-a-horror story of teens getting suckered into adware from ad banners and pop ups on myspace/facebook which lead to ad-ware....

And well, for them, they don't realize what they did, until it's too late, so yea, they could report the ads, but most of them (age group: 12-18) don't have the technical know-how to report a malicious ad banner/pop-up...which leaves it to us to do the dirty work.