DMOZ is dead or is it? Please post if you got approved lately!

How many examples are needed? I posted after you a few days ago with a link to over 10 thousands pages owned by an editor. If one example which is the worst of the worst is not good enough, then you should apply to be an editor yourself, as it's clear proof is pretty subjective in your eyes.

Gworld has also posted in the past of pages owned by editors (I am too lazy to look them up again).

I've also been accused of listing my own site while I was an editor, by other editors even.

However, I would like to add that there is nothing wrong with listing one's own sites as an editor at any level IF that site(s) complies with the guidelines and has not been given special treatment. In my Topix example, that WAS without a doubt given special treatment and it's deeplinks for the most part do NOT conform to the guidelines.

 

Absolutely correct on both counts.

 

Of course. he keeps repeating this over and over and over again, but without ever coming up with any actual URLs.

As I have said, now that he has directly accused me and many other "senior" editors of listing our own sites against DMOZ rules, I demand to know which sites he is talking about?

The fact that one of the founders of DMOZ created a lot of unnecessary work for editors several years ago is absolutely nothing at all to do with accusing ME of corruption. He has made this nasty accusation again and again, and now that I have called him on it, he suddenly has nothing at all to back it up.
We are all still waiting ...

 

lol That's because where there is no corruption, there is no evidence of corruption, and as an editor myself, your editing record is just as open to me and every other editor, as ours is to you. Even the founder of DMOZ could not hide his activities for long, so no other editor can either.

No editor can hide corruption for long, and you have been an editor for a very long time, and you are not only absolutely honest and trustworthy, you are one of the best mentors the Directory has. The allegations are totally false, and you're owed an apology.

 

Can you DMOZ editors link or even better explain in a bit more detail what exactly to you guys is a Website Quality mark because it seems to deviate from what others see, especially the way webmasters look on their own websites.

That will once and for all end this quarrel why websites were not added if we exclude the corruption part (which even you don't deny).

Thanks.

 

I not an editor (despite gworld lies about that), but the criteria I would use would be something like, does the site have something that the sites already listed in the category do not? If not, what is the point of providing, for eg, 51 links on a topic when the 50 already listed cover it well. What is the advantage to the category to list a whole lot of sites all offering the same? As editors keep pointing out, DMOZ is not a listing service for webmasters. Its there to provide a category of unique resources on a topic.

 

Well, that does not really prove a good point! This is a form of censorship over who's link will be listed. This is like listing only one News Reporter and limiting the actual individuality personal opinion.

So basically what I understand is that given as example few reviews of one same book, you will list only one of the reviewers which one "YOU" think sounds better to "YOUR" experience and the rest will be discarded even if they can also be considered as relevant and true opinions on the same topic?

Can any DMOZ editor here explain please, that sounds really wrong!

Venetsian.

 

Dead or Alive - it is not important at all if you are listed on DMOZ or not.

 

Do you have links on your site? Do you link to ALL the sites related to that link? If not, then you are applying a form of censorship. You are selective in who you link to, why can't DMOZ do they same. Why is it censorship for DMOZ and not for you?

No. "the individuality personal opinion" would mean the "sites" are different and have unique content and that would make them listable.

No. If the "reviews" were different then they would be listable; ie they have something that sites already listed do not have. What would make a site unlistable would be if they were the same reviews dressed up in a different way.

 

How would you interpet this comment posted 5 minutes ago in the Google webmaster help by a Google employee:

 

Hey Agent000, you said you are not DMOZ editor, why suddenly care so much about DMOZ anyway?

I do link to other people who link to me, nothing on this world is free

Venetsian

 

Why not? Why do you care so much about it as well? - you posted on it.

So, you do provide a form of censorship? Do you provide a link to DMOZ on your site?

 

Well, that's exactly the topic of this thread. Nobody got link from DMOZ. Why in the name of God I should link to something that doesn't want to link to me!! That's why many quality websites don't point to DMOZ any more and the main traffic of this directory got from zero to none. Especially after Google banned all web directories and DMOZ lost its real visitor traffic. What I hear is that most of the DMOZ visitors are only Submitters and Editors. No real human beings which was the whole original idea of the DMOZ. Was that to bring value to internet users ? The DMOZ is of no value to anybody. Now without its PR its the only valuable thing is the "occasional" google directory import so that we can get the category name right on Google.

This is getting ridiculous!

Venetsian.

 

When did google do this? I do not see any directories banned from Google. DMOZ's PR is still 8

You have no idea if that is the case or not. I think you are making this up.

So why do you and so many other want a link from it for? lol!

Its PR8 and has been for a long time.

Sure is, with you making so many things up and making so many untrue claims. Why would you do that for?

 

Quote: When did google do this? I do not see any directories banned from Google. DMOZ's PR is still 8
--- WRONG --- google did ban all directories back in 2006-2007 when the directory wars were taking place. That was google's way of dealing with massive link growth.

Quote: You have no idea if that is the case or not. I think you are making this up.
--- WRONG --- we all have websites listed there, we all know that they receive only handful of visitors yearly. That is monitored by Website Traffic Stats software

Quote: So why do you and so many other want a link from it for? lol!
My own Quote from the post above:Now without its PR its the only valuable thing is the "occasional" google directory import so that we can get the category name right on Google.

Quote: Its PR8 and has been for a long time.
well it was 9, then 7, then 8 its been highest PR after G & Y

My own Quote: This is getting ridiculous!
--- EXACTLY! --

 

You making that up. Google banned a couple, not all and certainly not DMOZ! Why did you make this up for?

You claimed they were editors and submitters. How do you know that? Why did you make that claim up?

Now you got it right. Can you explain why your previosuly claimed that it had no PR? You said "Now without its PR". Why did you make that one up for?

Why do you keep making things up for?

 

There is an editor in DMOZ by the name of Eric...... who in his own mind is so "smart" and "witty" that can fool anyone. Agent000 is most likely that editor. Anyone can look at his post and see how the person who in his first posts was claiming that doesn't know anything about DMOZ and is here to learn about it, all of a sudden turned to an expert on DMOZ guidelines. Agnet000 is fooling someone but it is not the members of this forum, only himself to believe that he is so smart.

 

Well, he is most definitely not a DMOZ expert and his statements in the above posts say that he does not know much except the public stuff that everyone in this forum knows and reads about. He also seems to be kind'a new to the whole deal as he doesn't know what happened few years ago (which was heavily emphasized in this forum) but well, he still can be a DMOZ editor, who knows!

Venetsian.

 

I notice that gworld is visiting these threads but is still refusing to list even a few of the websites he claims have been listed abusively by all "senior editors" like myself. To repeat:

Having made such repeatedly vicious accusations against me and my volunteer colleagues, it is rather surprising that he is unwilling to provide the evidence.

 

I have posted links to my previous threads, if you are too lazy to look at it, it is not my fault. after all I am a volunteer poster, isn't being a volunteer your excuse for everything?