DMOZ as an SEO/Linkbuilding tool, as claimed by an editor!

Right, not too complicated, like how they outted annie

It's pretty odd that the rules OK the listing of sites on a payment basis, but have bribes against the rules. It's also strange that "paid listings" would not be a form of favoritism, but listing sites here are.

It's good to know that you support such things, and that you feel me questioning why Annie was fired, as trolling...

I really hope she knows who her friends are now.

 

Q - In case your netiquette is as weak as your other knowledge, yes, crossposting the same argument into multiple threads IS trolling, which is why you were called one there, and here. Nobody that just adds 3 more sites than he absolutely has to and then leaves was going to be missed anyway.

Leaving seems to be the only thing you do well. No wonder you're so proud of it.

 

Like how you keep bringing up my edit count?

I'm also pretty sure that it's trolling to completely ignore the topic at hand in favor of bashing the original poster.

However there, I brought it up in two threads. One in the editors you miss thread, as Annie was missed. The other thread was asking about where there was no means of appeal. In fact, in that second thread, I don't think I was the first to actually bring her up. I was never uncivil in any of my posts. I never flamed anyone there. I asked honest questions. If that defines a troll, then what are you defined as within this thread...angelic?

This is yet another page where you have completely ignored the topic in favor of bashing the original poster. Now you want to call me a troll?

 

Hey... you selected the topic.... bashing people for using a dmoz login to their personal advantage. Right?

If so, it is absolutely appropriate to bring up your edit history. You might have forgotten that pertinent fact.

There's a saying about people that live in glass houses. With your record, you might not want to start threads accusing others of being lazy or self-interested. Ever.

 

You have no concept of what on-topic means. Likely due to your tiny little post count I have a great big post count so let me help you.

The topic at hand is for bashing people for using a dmoz login to list sites as a professional SEO and not for other abuses. Those all belong in other threads, many of which have already been started.

I'll ask one more time if I am getting this correct.

Paying a professional SEO that happens to be an editor can result in a DMOZ link and that is perfectly acceptable within the guidelines of the project.​

Is that correct?

 

LOL. You are really funny when you try to combine different and conflicting ideas in to one concept and hoping nobody will notice.

What is your conclusion, we shouldn't try to stop abuse. Why is there any "guideline" right now if it is not going to stop abuse?

So if you admit that a procedural change to stop abuse will not be necessarily a draconian rule then why do you keep talking about it in this way to make it sound that any change for stopping abuse will be bad?

How do you draw the conclusion that "nobody is likely to volunteer to work under draconian rules"? Can it be any more draconian than today when there is no democratic system for the management of the community, no procedure for getting new editing rights, no procedure for firing the editors and no way for editors to appeal a decision?

If the present editors can "volunteer" under present draconian rules then may be you are right when you said : "nobody is likely to volunteer to work under draconian rules" and many of editors are not volunteers.

 

Q - I answered the issue about SEOs... multiple times, but ok, once more... if, as your simple little mind thinks, the object of being an SEO was to get a link in Dmoz, it might be objectionable. Apparently you still think adding a site in dmoz is what SEO is all about. It is not, so having SEOs who receive money from clients whose sites are added right beside sites they add for non-clients does not concern us. It IS anticipated in the rules and dealt with if abuse is found. No biggie.

Aside from playing (we wish) dense on that... you also seem to think ONLY YOU dictate which abusers get bashed. Wrong.

When people come in to bemoan the lazy or self interested editors never once did you mention your dismal track record. You just pretend you weren't one of the best examples, so from now on if you play expert on dmoz... your record comes up.
----------

Gworld - One more time... Reread my posts. NO guideline can stop all abuse. I never said what you are saying I agree with. That said, we STILL have more accusations about abuse than actual abuse, by a huge factor.

I've told you what I think... if you know of some rule that will make things better knock yourself out and post it, but the truth is we don't have a huge problem the way it is. Change IS needed in many other areas IMO, but this one's not causing a lotta trouble.

 

Now was that all that hard to say? I heard you when you said SEO's were allowed. I just wanted to hear you say that paid listings were fine as well. I do not want to twist your words, I just wanted you to say it yourself, rather then having it always come from an Ex-editor (with a small edit count).

It does seem that you do not understand my understanding of SEO either. You seem to think I feel all SEO is would be getting listed at DMOZ. That is not the case, though any and all links do help, even one from the ODP. So while not all SEO is getting DMOZ links, all DMOZ links are SEO

You are correct, but changing the topic is a different story. If you want to bash my ethics, maybe start a new thread? Just be warned, I'll be bringing Annie up again

My track record has NOTHING to do with being paid for listing sites. So every time I post, feel free to say my edit count, but while your at it, point out to everyone whenever someone posts that was never an editor.

Though, when you are in the threads here trying to make it look like I'm clueless, please do everyone a favor, and actually keep things on topic rather then making them personal...OK? Otherwise you just look like a troll.

 

It depends on how you define abuse. The definition of abuse is very limited according to DMOZ since the DMOZ culture and way of working, make the editors a beneficiary of abuse. The "senior" editors are more abusive and can have monetary gains while the "little" editors get to list their own and their mother site.

You are wrong also to claim that this is not a big problem. Why a volunteer organization refuses to accept volunteers? Why is actual number of active editors around 200-300 instead of the official 7000 and many will give up after couple of months? aren't these problems because the "management" claims that they want to stop people who are going to abuse the directory? If this is the case, then why not implement procedures that stops the possibility of such abuses and permits the acceptance of new editors and giving more editing rights?

A large part of DMOZ today's problems is the result of editors culture that has declared that stopping abuse and benefiting from a "volunteer" work is not an acceptable option.

 

The sad part is apparently you really don't realize what a profoundly pathetic figure it makes you.


----------
Gworld - Most of our problems can be attributed (IMO) to the fact that the net has largely left our original model in the rear view mirror and we need to evolve beyond the current mode. Not sure where that'll take us, but "abuse" isn't our big issue regardless.

The guys outside that have talked about it incessantly for years may be thinking it is just because they've agreed with each other so long it seems right, but from the perspective inside that's not the case.

The place is by no means perfect, but really it isn't as far as I can tell any better or worse than pretty much any other group of it's kind, there's a spectrum of people, some smart, some dumber than farm tools, some honest, some would lie for fun... and they're probably available in the same proportions as the same types are found in the general populace.

 

Yes, it's clear that you think quiting because of the actions taken against an innocent friend is something profoundly pathetic. That must be the conclusion you came to after sitting under that tree before you got reinstated. It's obvious now that you feel Annie did show favoritism, and that she was corrupt enough to be expelled from the directory.

My actions speak for what I have done, as do yours. I quit after 2 months of editing because I stood up for what I believe in... if that makes me bad some how, then so be it.

Why again did you leave?

 

Oh heavens no. I think capitalizing on someone else's problems for your own personal purposes is, and I think the daily showboating reminders when you'd have us to believe you did something out of kindness sorta tells us it's all about you.

Guess you never heard the parable about the fella noisily tossing a gold coin into the offering plate.

Then again if you hadn't walked out three sites after adding your own you wouldn't NEED to fall back on someone else's story.

 

No, it's about how the guidelines of the ODP have allowed a good person to be hurt and how no one really seems to care about it, or her (including yourself). It was never about me.

You are right, I could fall back on mine. After all, I did have Meta's trying to correct the spelling of "magick" in an occult category. But as it stands, nothing was really wrong with how I was treated other then that site being delisted for having the correct spelling. Something wrong was done against a friend though, and friends are important enough to me to stand up for.

Are my few added sites unworthy some how? Any less worthy then any other added sites? If they are worthy of being listed, then why do you keep going on about them? Was it because there was so few of them? Because my site was one of them?

You seem to defend one rule that says paid listings by an SEO are fine, but now some how, listing your own site that was posted as an affiliate is some how immoral?

Yes, I listed my own site. I never kept that a secret either. And doing so is well within the guidelines you are defending so strongly. My site is also more then listable by the standards of the category. Do you disagree? Is there something wrong about adding an occult forum to a category specifically created for occult forums?

How is what I've done some how wrong, yet you are defending people getting a listing for money?

 

LOL. You can accept anything about DMOZ and it's problems as long as people agree that "abuse" is not a problem and there is no need for procedures that stops the abuse while in my previous post I gave you exact examples of how "senior" editors claim of fighting abuse is causing problems for community.

This is exactly the problem as I mentioned before:

Editors are all for changes and going forward as long as it doesn't touch their "benefits". Problems will not be solved as long as the "management" is not ready to deal with abuse and is benefiting from a guideline full of loopholes that rewards the corrupts and punishes the honest. Install procedures that stops abuse and you can open the community to volunteers and have thousands of editors instead of 200-300 a present time.

I suppose this will be too much for DMOZ at present time since it will require a total overhaul of it's organization and editor's culture.

 

Actually it is oddly always about her when you're in a corner... which means it's really all about you. Funny how that works.

No way of knowing... it was 404 yesterday when I tried to look at it to see. Of course I'm no occult expert... and like you I don't like to log into the occult cat frequently anyway.

But no, there's no harm in adding your own site. Of course if you add it with the ones on the app and 3 more then waltz out, you aren't so much an editor as a submitter with a login. Doesn't qualify you to criticize the real editors.
-----------------

LOL. OK G, I think I've answered, you don't seem to agree. Us ODPers can't seem to grasp the issues, too dense to see it your way. Guess you're gonna have to start your own if it's ever gonna get done right. Lemme know if you need a resident forum addict.

 

When were you there, I'll check my logs to see if something was the matter. Though, it does seem to be working now, without issue.

Odd that it gave you an error though, maybe the problem was on your end some how?

 

LOL. Don't be modest. I think ODPers can exactly grasp the issues and that is the reason they will fight any change to close the loopholes.

You shouldn't challenge me. The last time that Alucard and company made that mistake over DMOZ copyright, I made the directory in my signature. Poor Alucard and friends had to run to mommies that they should put a note on my directory that it can never be listed in DMOZ, so they can feel good about something after losing the discussion here.

I am already thinking to use my directory as a test vehicle to try some new ideas, so we will see how it goes.

 

LOL. I don't lose discussions here, I just tire of the infinite process of nailing jello to a tree.

Well, lemme know when you get that directory up... I have some spam... er ... submissions to send you.

 

It is already up. I put it up when alucard was trying to scare people with the "might" of AOL.

If you have web sites about cars, you are welcome to submit and unlike DMOZ, you won't even need to become an editor or pay someone for "SEO" work to get fast listing.

P.S. You already lost the discussion when you had to support the loopholes in the guideline.

 

Strange I have only met dedicated, hard working editiors who only wanted to offer the public a service. What happens we get lambasted for corruption being reponsible for paedophile sites and many other things. But I have bumped into a small minority of editors who join, list their own site and a couple of others and then 'forget' to come back. Rob, you got it right if the directory is not good and Q keeps posting 'forget to submit', why does he now not ask us to remove it, to show his disgust with the directory and really back up his support for Annie. how would he want to have a site listed in such a rotten, corrupt organization? On the other hand he did pay a great price for the listing by having to add his competitors, but perhaps his site does stand out because he picked the worst of the competition!

But to be on topic, it is significant that you have to list affiliations and sites that you have worked on, so that if an SEO lists only those then there is some track of that. And if the editor does not declare the sites and that is discovered and those sites have been listed by the editor s/he is likely to find some skids under their editing. If one gets payment for simply listing then there is no declared trace for those sites.

But hey, people always believe what they want and prefer to believe.

It's like I find it incredible that gworld who claims to be an ODP editor wants to tear the directory apart. Surely if one believes that it is as corrupt as he wants to suggest, one walks a million miles away from it.