What kind of websites are accepted by DMOZ?

How can anyone know if the editor was paid? What if the site is legit and was added from the "pool" faster than other sites or out of queue if there is any just because the editor was paid?

 

WE have our ways!

 

I am pretty sure NO ONE ON EARTH holds that premise....especially the part about listing as many sites as you can, lol.

PARADOX: Editors compare edit counts to see who is bigger and better.

L.O.L.

Stop it... you are killing us with your lies. If you actually had ways, then there would not be nearly as many completed transactions with positive feedback for ODP listings on freelance sites. So just get your "honest" self out of here... LOL

 

What are those ways? You have access to the bank account of each editor to see from where the payments came from? Just because you refer to DMOZ as a free directory does not mean that there are no bribes taken in the background.

 

Well you got it. There is the catch.

 

OK, so how can I become an editor?

 

It always amazes me that when webmasters sites are not included in dmoz, they scream corruption, bias, laziness and everything under the sun.

Fact of the matter is your suggestion is welcome....but that's it. It is simply a suggestion and may be reviewed in time to come. If you do not like this, simply do not suggest your site. We don't need suggestions, we are more than happy to find and publish sites by numerous other methods.

How much time we devote to the directory and what editing functions we choose to perform when editing are done on a voluntary basis as a hobby, not as a listing service for webmasters wishing to improve seo.

Hopefully some day you will all come to understand that.

 

hahaha, ok. If getting a site listed isn't easy. You don't want to know the things you'll have to do to become an editor!

 

So now im corrupt simply because im an editor?

 

In the mean time, DMOZ corruption is SO obvious that nobody can understand you. So start by cleaning up the mess!

 

What about the webmasters who have sites listed but are still calling corruption? They hold a little more water don't they? What amazes me is how many editors that have left that are calling corruption...and how many editors that have been let go for corruption which is generally replied to by current editors with something like I've just quoted you for saying...

Sorry, but if the shoe fits

 

Mmhh....would you like to show me one corrupt act i have committed. Editor name and DP name are the same....this could be fun I then assume you will certainly apologise on the open forum when you cant

 

Mind posting your edit history?

 

Things like what? I will put this as the objective in my resume when I apply for my editor position: "I am willing to volunteer my time for the betterment of the Webz and the Internetz and its constituents. I will review every site to the best of my ability and try to be fair to everyone on the Webz and make Google happy so that they send me pizza party coupons." What do you think, will this get me the job?

 

Obviously i cant post any of the internal logs, but you know that But surely you have "proof" or you wouldnt make your corruption claims. I mean, i am an editor, so acording to you im corrupt.

Just post one url here that i have unfairly promoted and i will happily resign...... But i know you cant So do you (LOL).

I will however accept your apology when you decide you cant show your "proof"

 

Nobody is saying that you're corrupt. We're just saying there is a big incentive for corruption to occur.

 

Would you just repeat that about no one saying we are corrupt!

 

Again, you made a mistake. I am referring to the specific person, not 'you' as a whole. I am saying that the guy may not be corrupt but I never said that I think everyone is not corrupt. Out of all the editors and considering human psychology, there is a very good chance someone is corrupt. Tell me this. Have you found all politicians not to be corrupt? I mean, they're big figures so why would they be corrupt since they have so much to lose, right?

 

I dont think anyone has ever said that there has never been a corrupt editor and that there never will be another one.

But they are very few and far between and there are stringent checks, double checks and other methods or negating any possible avenues for corruption. Personally, i would assume that this is why some editors applications are not accepted, as mentioned in these very forums. "Lack of honesty" when applying to become an editor is one of the very issues that would concern us the most.

Fact of the matter is that many people in here are saying "Editors" are corrupt, when that is simply not the case. The majority of peoples complaints can be simply put down to our needing more editors and there being not enough hours in the day to perform every editing function that ideally, we would all like to perform. This includes quality control, publishing new sites and just general day to day editing tasks.

 

To get more editors, you pay them and then they will process websites much faster and everyone will be happy. This is why I said there should be a fee for each submission so that it gets reviewed relatively quickly, so that people do not have to wait a year or more to get their site included. Right now, only a small number of sites are listed and only those sites are reaping the benefits of the DMOZ's high PR while others are waiting and thinking why their site was not added yet when it follows the rules.