How can you tell if DMOZ have your site on a pending list?

You know all too well why I left, and it's a shame that you must make this all about me then about Annie. You know that I left because of how she was treated. Do you remind Mr. Jones that he jumped ship as well?

Come on, if all I wanted to do was list my own site I'd have not stayed around for as long as I did. I was trying to learn from a broken system as I had pointed out several times on internal forums...yet out here in the public all the editors can say is that I listed my site and left.

Well, every time you say that I listed my site and left, is another time you say that Annie is not worth fighting for. If you ever called her a friend, then you should honestly take it back...your actions are certainly showing that you in fact do not care.

There is a HUGE difference between SEO work and bribing. I have made it clear in nearly every post I referred someone to get a paid listing to make sure that they did not bribe. And if you recall correctly, I was not the one that pointed out where it the rules SEO work was OKed, that was Rob Jones.

So if you do not like the rules about Paid Listings being OK, then petition them to be changed. Till then, I'll keep pointing out that they are in fact an option.

"so long as they benefit the editor and the directory"

What does it say, other then the editor knew that my site was working, other wise why would I have it in my sig and talk about? And I must ask again, was DMOZ removed when it was down for months? How many editors looked the other way for that one? I mean, if the site is unstable, then it should not be listed right? So go on, remove my site again... but make sure there are no more DMOZ links either. And I've already pointed out the CNN issues... yet the CNN main page is still there, and will remain there...why? Because everyone knows the site is not broken. So don't give me your by the book nonsense, unless you are willing to back it up across the board.

So again, what does it say?

Have I ever said that? Have I even hinted around to that? you are placing words in my mouth dear boy... What I have said though, is that you would rather troll me here on DP then do anything about the flaws I have pointed too. So I ask, what does that say about you?

 

I actually sent update report for few websites I mentioned here which have changed owner and even did complete content change... and nothing happened... if that new owner happen to be me I have no doubt those websites would got delisted ASAP as was case with Calradia.com!

Maybe I should buy CNN, that would take care of all 404's in a nanosecond.

 

Both of you have (yet again) whined about your own site, & Q again pretended the way to change dmoz is for a troll that's added 5 sites runs out like a scalded pup .

Granted it wasn't on topic here, but maybe you won't derail every other thread with the need to do this yet again? Naah.


btw, concensus is you only left cause it hurt your feelings when the admin publicly called you a little troll

 

Oddly enough, If I ran out like a scalded pup, you, being the big dog, had no issues about following after. Says a lot about you doesn't it?

Public consensus of a thread on internal forums? Strange, sounds more like a private consensus. Though yeah, that's why I left. I asked why annie didn't get a warning or a means of an appeal, and *I* am the one trolling. Yeah, way to go admin! I was so offended that I wrote my resignation. The pure lack of concern for Annie coupled with the blind following of the meta team.

Now, what do all the them think about you leaving? And why did you leave again? Certainly not for the same reasons I left or you'd still be gone.

 

They were all so distraught about losing you that most of 'em didn't even notice I was out. Honest.

btw - My hat's there cause I raise horses. Going on the same theory... have you by chance been plundering ships in the Carribean or was there a Gay Pirate convention recently?

 

Well, it's about time you told the truth

 

Q, the shear hypocracy is unbelievable.

If Annie wanted all that brought up she is on the boards these days and can do it.
But most of all you claim to have left like some knight of old protecting a maiden's honor, but then spend a great chunk of your day alegedly helping that same organization that you left because it distressed you so much.
But ofcourse it is far easier to be an armchair critic. Spewing out anything that will put the organization in a bad light. You had no more interest than fly in what bad links there were, you were just trying to cover your tracks that you were so distressed that your site was de-listed that you sent an abuse report and now claim we should have paying attention to the links you send us to rather than when yours goes wrong.
You want editors to watch your signature to see if the link is working, how many others do you want us to monitor in this way?
I don't alltogether blame you for being bitter about ODP, but don't try and dress up your bitterness by claiming you want to help. If you had wanted to do that you would have stayed and fought your corner. But no, your chosen path is to try and pretend that you are a goodie when all the time you seek to twist and skew and deliberately miss-understand anything so that you can turn it against ODP.
As I said I don't mind the bitterness, gworld and Ivan are at least honest, its the hypocracy that gets to me. The double sad thing is that in my better moments, I just believe that you believe all the junk that you spew out at times.
I have one consolation, other posters can see your motivation for what it is.

 

So, what you are saying is that the person that knew which site was mine because he mentioned just how many edits I had and just how many went into that site didn't know the site was active even though we had discussed it several times the day before and after it was de-listed?

you are right, too much to expect from a feeble mind.

But no, had it been any other editor, or had it been from someone with an interest in the area of the directory, I would most certainly have treated the siltation different on my end.

In the case of my site getting de-listed it was a grudge plain and simple. Go on, say it wasn't. To all that see the way that editor speaks to me here the truth of the matter is self evident.

And as for me continuously bringing annie up, well, if people would quit spewing lies about why I left maybe, just maybe I'd stop needing to bring the truth of the matter back up. I quit because of what happened to annie, NOT because my site was listed and I was done, and not because a silly admin called me a troll (I was the most civil person in any of the conversations there).

Please feel free to point to any lies I have said about the ODP.

I'm looking forward to see what you have to say.

 

I am glad that you hang on every word of mine.

The day you spend a fraction of the time that the editor does who de-listed your site working for ODP, and carping here is not that, is the day I will take any notice of purile comments like "with an interest in the area of the directory" or take anything you say other than I do at present with Ivan, as a huge joke. If you had any interest in the directory you would not have used blank sites as a weapon to try to cover up that you were so upset by being unreviewed that you filed an abuse report. By the way do tell us if you still believe "forget2submit", YOUR ADVICE TO OTHERS.

Many times wonder how well you read because you don't seem to always grasp or see what is written. Just to comment that "lies" was in your post twice it does not appear in mine.

If helping is to comment when we have told people why a site might not be listed by saying "It could be a corrupt editor" or such, when you know how unlikely that is, then please don't bother. But isn't it easy to knock the director, claim you are really supporting it, and failed miserably to use the real opportunity you had to help by throwing a fit and running. Being right sometimes about things that are wrong does not mean that your mind set is helpful. Ivan can and does point to issues but I would not describe that as helpful. Yes, as Alucard said, we can use any information, but at least be honest with yourself and admit that you wish you had not left, you would like to be back, but dare not even ask, just be glad the decision would not be in my court.

Typical too is your comment that 2+2=10 So an editor for whatever reason, again as Alucard said we get tips etc from any source, visits your site, finds it dead and puts it in unreview. Editor must be corrupt. I had the unfortunate experience of visting youir site, if it had not returned I would have delisted it, exactly the same as any other site in the directory. So it's favoritism you wanted, sorry that is not allowed and neither are bribes.

 

Why keep hinting that someone other then the person that publicly states my sites removal, removed it? And why do you keep telling me bribes are not allowed? Trying to somehow mask the truths I've spoken? We both know who removed my site, and the guidelines clearly state that PAID LINKS are OK, and that I've always made the distinction between paid links and bribery.

Why not bring up a tit for tat? Why not point to THOUSANDS of dead links from a single site that have all been that way for months, when I find a site thats been dead for 15 minutes and get removed?

If it was just some passing editor that removed my site, then why not say it's just some random site. Does that make it any less wrong to remove when there are entire cats littered with dead sites, that have been dead for as long as they have been?

Get your mind off of me for a single solitary moment and look at it from the larger picture. Tell me if it were any other site that went down for 15 minutes if it would be somehow beneficial to the end user to remove it from the directory for 5 days, or in the case of someone who didn't complain, 5 months or more. Would you knowingly remove Robs site? Would you remove Google if it went down? Get your mind off of me. It's clear you want me to go away...so answer the question if the site was not mine. If the answer is the same, then you do not care about the end user, or the directory.

 

My last comment on this because I have said it all before.
If I came across your site, rob's site, my site, the President's site, AOL, Google or any other site that was not functioning I would put it into unreview.
Now I am just going to repeat that IF I CAME ACROSS ANY SITE THAT DID NOT WORK, I WOULD PUT IT INTO UNREVIEW.

We can have no idea how long a site is to be down. So that's where it goes. I have a site now that I am so sad has gone down, but it has and its in unreview, it may not be there for long, but it is at this time.

As you might remember, unreview is not deleted, its what happens to all the robo reds, robo does not come back and say did I not ought to do this because it belongs to Q. But it is the reason that I favor first updates, then reds and thridly submissions, but that does, as I said posts ago, discriminate against new submissions. But sometimes robo and other spiders we use do find sites that are down for a short time (though robo does leave some time between passes) and a human has to investigate and if OK return. There is a button, you will remember, though perhaps you were not there long enough, on robo sites in unreview that says "works OK for me" and then it can be returned. Other spiders look for sites being parked.

So you were not deleted you were treated the same way I would treat any site, and as you know your site was reviewed and returned, because it was working.

So I have answered your questions, one remains for me about you. You squealed like a pig when your site was removed for a few days with an abuse report. So do you still have the gall to say to other webmasters "forget2submit" as your best advice, like what you have given so many times on these threads?

 

Forget to submit still stands by my way of thinking. I mean, with the speed of getting in and/or the acceptance rate it's often quicker to not even bother, as the success rate is pretty close. Combine that with getting your site shoved back into review because it was down for 15 minutes and even if you did submit you are back to square one...so yes, submit & forget or forget 2 submit. The only alternative is to stand around and complain like I do. Now do you want more people like me hanging about?

 

I have waited for 2 years and no-one contacts me . It used to be shown , but after that, I never seen it.

 

stillo, dmoz.org had a very bad crash a year ago. If you haven't submitted your site in 2007 and it meets guidelines and would be an asset to the category you would submit to, then resubmit.

Ordinarily no one from dmoz will contact you about a submission, whether good or bad.

 

Submissions are 'for consideration', no one is guaranteed a place. It is not a listing service and at present, and this might change, we do not inform people as to what has happened to their site. So far we have not had the resources. Please also believe when someone says, would it not be too hard to write this or that, all editors are volunteers, if you want to criticise can i suggest you have no grounds unless you come and spend some of your own time working as an editor.

 

Or, you can make your concerns known by speaking politely to AOL Staff directly, on their blog. They are the only ones with the power to change anything. If you can speak intelligently, without getting potty mouthed, you can have your own personal bitchfest.

http://blog.dmoz.org/

 

It will be almost a month now since last post, is the blog dead?

 

Thank you. I will resubmit again and let see

 

Well, the last post was on:
Posted at 2:35PM on Nov 20th 2007 by H. D. Shuemake

But, I'm sure you mean by staff, .

They've got a lot pots on the stove right now, and a lot of possible issues they could respond to. I'm sure as soon as they get a free moment, they'll have something to say. They're probably still reading my last post, I tend to be a little long winded occassionally.