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

Its up to metas to decide which violation deserves removal and which doesn't something like judge Roy Bean.

 

having been on here for a while I think they make better judgements than I ever credited them with

 

One out of three? Just a few posts back you said it was only one... I must be acquiring sites left & right.

Oh, so again, the rules do not apply to everyone.

 

You are right again, you are learning about DMOZ "guideline".

 

You missed the spot where I added:

• 9 of your 27 edits were to either occultcorpus.com or qrytztufre.com

Why mention it? You're prancing around accusing others of being self serving, despite having spent 1/3 of your time on two sites of your own. Add to that you're too lazy to read the guidelines, and they invalidate this thread's premise.

I don't know that edit numbers are dark secrets, but just in case...

• Here are the communication guidelines... http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html
  (Be sure to quote the part I violated)
  
• * And for extra credit, here are the guidelines covering conflicts of interest... http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html
  (Be sure to tell us which part the guy this threads about broke)

btw - You've been an ex-ed twice as long as you were an editor... and you left in early June. Talk about needing to let go. LOL

 

Go ahead and spin this away from the real issue as much as you need to, but please admit that DMOZ is a paid directory, or show me proof that it is not.

First paragraph, first sentence: The Open Directory prides itself on being a free, non-commercial and open resource for the Web community.

Then there is this, which I've asked about several times: Instances when the involvement is mutually beneficial are acceptable, however, the primary focus and goal should always be to serve the best interests of the ODP and the editing community.

You've quoted my edits, and you've looked at which I was affiliated with. Now mind rummaging around his and tell just just how many of his clients were listed because they PAID him for the listings? You seem to not mind giving information about editors that is not public, so go on, share the info!

And he better have HUNDREDS of affiliates: Sites you've marketed, promoted or optimized as a function of your employment, business or on someone else's behalf. as that is one of the guidelines to have them listed.

If he does not have hundreds then: Intentionally concealing affiliations for the purposes of conducting deceptive, unfair and abusive editing will result in removal of editing privileges.

Here is my Kryptonite again... Annie was fired for Favoritism. She listed sites that have been known to be owned by DP members. Of the sites she has listed, how many were not worthy of being listed? If they were worthy of being listed, then how is that favoritism if the guy that wrote this article can list sites he was PAID to list. How is what Annie against the rules, and getting bribes against the rules, but Link Building for Money is somehow OK?

I don't know Mr. Jones, maybe it's because I cared enough about Annie to stand up for her rights...where do you stand? Didn't you step down for a while over all that? I see you are back, and defending her getting fired. Now there is a true friend.

No go on, spin this back at my edits.

 

Your drama queen exit (ie - you took the easy way out) left the sorta dent in ODP one makes when they pull their finger out of a glass of water. *Nobody* cared that a rude punk with 10 adds stormed out in a little tizzy, so unless you've changed your name, had a sex change, and gained a helluva lot of edit experience, you're just trying to cash in on someone else's rep.

Returning to the actual subject:

1. It's obvious you still haven't read the relevant section of the "Conflict of Interest" guidelines.
   
2. I gather you haven't checked to see which editor the guy is and what he edits, which is easy without an ODP login for those that have a brain AND actually check their target before firing.

When/if you make that effort, we'll have a nice crow lunch ready afterward. Without checking, you're just a troll.

 

Yes, you are right. I am nothing but a troll. Now go into the internal forums and point out where I was uncivil to all the other editors. Go in and see how *I* was treated for asking why there is no official warning system in place or why there is no means for appeal. Yes, I was the one trolling because I had the balls to ask why the basic editor has no rights.

To anyone else that has read them, it should be clear that I have read them.

So I should point fingers directly at the editor?

If I do, will you give his edit counts?

If I am a troll for pointing out that a "free" directory is OK with "paid listings" then so be it.

 

OK, I'll give you a hint... the guy has one category plus subcats. It is well tended and filled with his competitors, which I'm guessing don't ask him to rep their sites, but I could be wrong. Ergo, he can't add his clients sites to ODP cats any more than you can (not that you actually engaged in adding sites when you had a login anyway).

By now pretty much anyone would've figured out they're wrong, but you are, ummm... "special".

CLUE: Try a little research before proving your total ignorance by starting topics on subjects where you're wrong on both the facts and the guidelines because you didn't check either. I'm actually forced to agree with Gworld here, you know nothing but still post because you desperately need attention. Kid, get a new hobby, you aren't close to an expert on the topic you're pretending expertise in.

 

OK, let me see if I get it right this time...

Being a Professional Link Builder and/or an SEO specialist is well within the scope of being a DMOZ editor. And as such, their paid work, can result in a listing within the directory. Though, that is by no means a bribe, and is well within the guidelines of the ODP.

Now, is that wrong?

Now let me see if I got this part right...

Finding sites on a forum for webmasters and listing them is a sign of favoritism, and as such is grounds for dismissal without warning or means of appeal, even though there was no money, and said sites were worthy of being listed.

 

OK, since it became obvious in my last post about the only people the guy could actually list would be his competitors (which he does btw) and you still want to play expert... let's pull the other half of your argument unceremoniously from under your feet.

Here is what the guidelines say about SEOs as far as being welcome to help us:

So why did you bother joining ODP in the first place if this rule is evil? You didn't check before joining?

Again, if you don't LIKE the guidelines, start your own project. Not like you wasted a lot of time on ours... well until you left.

 

That is not a reply to my last post... though, reading through what else you've said I guess that it's clear. Paid Listings are more then fine.

See, it's OK to list sites for money.

Honestly, it did not strike me that I could actually get paid for listings. It was a free directory, and as such, that simply did not seem all that out of place at the time.

It also didn't seem to phase me that there is no official warning system or grounds for appeal either. *shrug*

I do not feel my time is wasted, as I am volunteering it for the betterment of the internet community in general ~ ya know, the same people DMOZ supposedly serves.

Though, I am finding humor in the fact you need to end each of your posts in some type of personal jab. I thought you were above that.

 

Well, let's change it up and put the jab at the start... until now scientists have obviously been terribly wrong about the densest substance in the universe... I'll introduce you to 'em & straighten that out.

So summarizing what we've learned:

1. the rules don't say what you thought, SEOs are as welcome as anyone else
2. and the guy couldnt have done what you're objecting to unless his competitors are engaging his services
3. and you STILL haven't figured out you're wrong.

ROFL. Seriously kid....

ADDED: "THAN". The word is "THAN", not "then". Sorry, illiteracy at your age is silly.

 

Must you keep making personal attacks?

Why did you skip this post of mine?

 

ON TOPIC
The guy couldn't have done what you suggested... he doesn't have the access... and there's no conflict just because he's an SEO. If his services were limited to putting sites in Dmoz that would definitely be a problem, but it appears he can't even really offer to do that.

That makes the thread moot, and I won't argue until you figure it out cause I'm too close to retirement already.

If you continue to pretend to have expertise I'm sure we can all take turns pointing out your opinion is untainted by experience and 1/3 of your edits were to your own sites. You may as well give up this BS and find another hobby. You just have no credibility, merely an attention seeking poseur.

ON YOUR OFF-TOPIC ATTEMPTS
Not turning another thread into a referendum on Annie, as I had no part until afterwards, and my involvement is frankly just none of your business. Many did more than you did with the pissy drama queen exit, but not everyone cares to use her story for personal ends. Maybe you'll understand better when you grow up.

 

how about just this statement then?

True or false?

(and that is fully on topic)

 

Stop bullying Qryztufre. His mistake was that he didn't know that DMOZ links can be bought and sold according to the "guideline". How do you feel about a guideline that is full of loopholes and opens the door to corruption and abuse?

 

Since I have done lot more edits then Q before being removed I too find DMOZ guidelines a joke, I get a warning for Conflict of Interest after adding over 300 competitor websites to categories where I had my website already listed long before I even joined DMOZ .

What a waste of time, I could have sold them SEO service and made lot of cash instead of searching the net for quality websites to fill totally outdated categories.

So me believing that DMOZ is totally screwed up is backed by lots of experience!

 

That might require you to know something about SEO service. If you think sticking a link in Dmoz is the same thing, you don't.

Once again, you've seen the guidelines, if you don't agree with 'em, we'll have to struggle on without your help.

 

Does this mean that you agree and approve of a "guideline" that is full of loopholes and opens the door to corruption and abuse? Would you like to explain why, since it is just natural that real volunteers wouldn't like to be associated with abusive and corrupt practices?