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

ROFL. Gworld, Say it aint so. Sure I always took you for a troll, but I sorta had you pegged for being one of the bright kids in this class. LOL.... YOU think the true secret of being an SEO is sticking a link in Dmoz? LOL.

You can't possibly *really* think it carries that much weight. I edit there and I don't. So no, I don't have any qualms that the rule as written gives SEOs a certain accessibility advantage if they also edit at Dmoz. It's dang sure not a disadvantage, but I don't have a problem with that. If they follow the rule as written, I'm happy. Maybe I'm just naturally evil?

The one in question (haven't ANY of you looked him up yet or are you just griping for the fun and research is harder than whining?) edits in a tiny section where about the only guys he's adding are competitors, and despite not being able to add his clients any more than you could add your own site he seems to be scraping by.

 

Did I say anything about SEO? Did I say anything about this guy?

I said that DMOZ "guideline" is full of loopholes that opens the door to corruption and abuse and I wonder why you as volunteer would support such a "guideline" that causes you be associated with corruption and abuse?

Your answer is that you maybe are naturally evil. Unfortunately, I don't believe in God or Devil, so I prefer to concentrate on more earthly motives such as profit.

 

Guidelines that aren't a little loose generally aren't suited for volunteer groups. Either way no guidelines, rules, or even the 10 Commandments could absolutely stop abuse or corruption. Those come with human nature, and human nature slips in when humans do. Some will be honest with or without restraint, some would cheat if you threatened their life.

I don't write the guidelines, but I don't have a problem with most of 'em, including this set. There are guidelines elsewhere I'd change, but that's a different thread. If I start my own directory I'd probably still find myself having to compromise some I'd prefer to have in order to accommodate the others present. That's how groups function.

If you come up with a perfect set of guidelines that eliminates all corruption without killing off all the humans lemme know... I'll present them to the staffers, giving you full credit of course.

 

Are you saying that "guideline" being loose and opening the door to corruption and abuse is necessary in order for "volunteers" to "volunteer" for being an editor?

If no "guideline" is going to stop the corruption because of human nature then what is the point of all the secrecy and paranoia in DMOZ? Doesn't it strike as strange that "senior" editors like to be strict and paranoid in regard to the rules that has no function but make the corruption possible while they like to be "loose" in regard to the rules that can stop corruption and abuse?

 

Of course not. Just saying if you create an intolerably draconian set of rules it might be tough to find people that'd work for free after finding out we're doing cavity searches when they come in and out of the forum.

Whether guidelines are loose or stringent you still need to enforce them. I personally don't consider confidentiality requirements in place to be paranoid. YMMV.

LOL. Speaking of paranoid... ROFL. Dang G, that's the first time I've seen a paragraph would make more sense if it went thru babblefish a few times.

I don't actually see what you appear to be suggesting... in fact I have no idea how strictly enforcing a guideline could make corruption possible. As far as being loose in regard to rules that can stop corruption... I know enough metas and admins that I can safely say I see 'em nail abuse pretty frequently. Are they perfect? Hell no. Is it a working system? Sure.

 

LOL. Editors are OK that they have no say on how the organization is managed, that they can be fired in anytime without any explanation or reason or they can be denied the right to edit in new category but if DMOZ decides to impose a procedure that stops corruption and abuse then it "intolerably draconian set of rules" that can not be tolerated by editors.

 

From my experience as an Editor, yes, that does seem to be the case. I brought up both the lack of a need for a warning, and that there is no appeals system, and was called a troll on both counts. I was one of the few people posting in those threads that was civil.

As you can see in this thread, even change to help get professional link builders looked into goes hand in hand with people getting flamed.

Though, this thread is not about all of the guidelines, its just about the part where they allow paid listings through SEO work.

 

As if that changes anything, DMOZ is already lying to be run by global community of volunteer editors while in fact it run by meta oligarchy while normal editors have only right to be removed without a chance to defended themselves or even know the reason.

Yep asking editor to explain his/her actions before removal is absurd, everyone is guilty for something anyway so just remove them.

Constantly drooping number of editors, totally dead categories and snail pace at which websites are listed tells everything on how does DMOZ works... government of Somalia comes to mind.

 

ROFL. You weren't flamed Q... I just told the truth. Sorry to blow your cover, but since you insist on truth, it will appear every time you act like you were once a part of the directory. To be an ex-ed you have to have been an editor first. You just had a login.

Face it, with 27 edits and a third were to your own sites, you have no room to accuse ANYONE of self-interest.

Given the fact that your initial premise for this thread is in tatters, no rules have been broken and the guy the threads about isn['t even in a position to add his clients, now you can only change the premise to say you personally don't approve of the rules. My thought, ok, BFD. At ODP you were a troll with more posts than production, now you're doing the same thing.

 

My initial premise for this thread is that "professional link builders" can get paid to list sites within the directory. Something which you have seemingly gladly confirmed by quoting from the DMOZ guidelines.

Are you denying that such editors can turn a profit by listing sites?

As for me being an editor, how does that matter in the topic of this thread? Especially when we now agree that a profession link builder can charge for his link building within the directory, as it may benefit both the editor and the directory.

I've asked you several times to say whether a statement was true or not several times, and several times you have turned my posts into something about "edit size" well, hear this. I trump you on post count here. Does that mean you are not a member? I've posted in more forums here at DP does this mean you do not exist? No, sorry, you are a member here, and I was an editor there.

It does not take a large edit count to make an editor, it takes editing, and as you keep pointing out, I've done that. So, if you are that concerned about penis sizes take it into the internal forums where the rest of the comparisons take place. Till then, put it back in your pants and answer the question.

Can an editor make money by listing sites within DMOZ?

Keep in mind that doing that would benefit both the editor and the directory, and that is well within the guidelines, for an SEO Professional.

 

I notice you didn't address the fact that a 1/3rd of your edits were to your own sites.

Since the thread is about editors using their login for personal interests... maybe you'd care to elaborate about your credentials with regard to this sudden disgust with our guidelines... given you seem to have a pretty fair history of self interest yourself?

Were you this disgusted with your own failure to put others ahead of yourself?

 

Tell me who the troll here is again?

How many sites did I list in my category. Of those sites, how many were mine? In the 2 and a half months I was there, just how many help files and FAQs were on line? It's pretty clear by your posts, that someone under 1k edits is not worth your times, so getting help from senior editors was out. So tell me again how many edits I've had.


This thread is not about that, though it's clear you are afraid to actually stay on topic. It would mean an editor has agreed that it's a PAID DIRECTORY on some level. I bet you fear that a meta with a bigger edit count then your's will see that you agreed and you'll get fired without a warning and no means of appeal.

No go on, turn this back into how many edits I have

 

Well, since you insist... OK. I AM on topic btw. You started the thread to point fingers at others, to accuse others of self interest.

You had personally EXACTLY 27 edits... of those edits,

• 5 were to one of your own sites,
• 4 were to the other,
• 1 was to change the mozzie image in your category,

Only 10 edits were actually unique adds to the directory, with a lot of those being added to your bookmarks, not the actual directory. You personally used the directory for reasons that benefited primarily nobody but yourself.

Seriously, you added a couple of sites to the directory then quit... how convenient since now yours is in.

Hey, you wanted to use this thread to point fingers at self-interested editors... that's exactly what I'm doing.

 

Let's assume everything that you say about Qryztufre is correct. Doesn't this mean that the way DMOZ procedures and guidelines are formed, it assures that "volunteers" are only motivated by profit either in form of link or money instead of desire to volunteer for a task?

Is this what DMOZ "senior" editors desire? Let's make everyone corrupt to an extend, so no one can complain about corruption and abuse. Why is it so necessary for DMOZ editors to insure that there will always be possible to abuse the directory? Why do you think that no one will volunteer if the loopholes in "guideline" are closed and procedures that stop corruption are implemented?

It seems to me that you have no faith in humans and you believe no one will edit in DMOZ just as a hobby and the only way to attract editors in by rewarding them through corruption and abuse.

 

Thanks for agreeing that DMOZ is a PAID directory. You've skipped the point enough to either show you are a complete moron, or that I was in fact correct.

You know why I quit, and you know as well that there were no help files to guide me, and by your own admission, you don't consider someone with a low post count worth your time. Explain how I was to gain more edits? And keep in mind, I'd still be an editor today had it not been for the unjust actions of the Meta Team and how they Treated Annie.

Now tell me why you stepped down. Now explain why you went back. Seems to me your morals have slipped.

And yes, I am using her name, I quit in her honor, as you did. I'm not using her as a shield, in fact, I'd not bring her up at all, but you are so focused on my post count, I have to say something, as that is the only reason I have, as it is the only reason.

This thread is not about that, though it's clear you are afraid to actually stay on topic. It would mean an editor has agreed that it's a PAID DIRECTORY on some level. I bet you fear that a meta with a bigger edit count then your's will see that you agreed and you'll get fired without a warning and no means of appeal.

You fear getting let go under the same rules that put Compost Annie out, and that is why you will not actually reply to the parts I keep bolding and keep making it personal.

 

Q - Grow up and quit hiding behind a girls skirt... you made damn few edits, got your own site in, then conveniently excused yourself. Trying to make it a noble gesture may sound cool, but your handful of edits to add anyone else's site doesn't back that theory.

Once you figured out how to add one, you didn't need a lot of instruction to figure out how to add others. You certainly figured out how to add YOURS in the first 24 hours.

Your a little troll with delusions of adequacy. No more. You have no business accusing REAL editors of anything.
--------------

Actually G, I have plenty of faith in human nature. Everyone I know at dmoz except staff edits there as a hobby. The fact that the handful that are SEOs can add sites as a part of their normal practice just doesn't get me as excited as others. Of course they add others too, I don't see it as a big deal, it is as the guideline says, mutually beneficial.

As I see it, SEO work includes a TON more than a dmoz link, and as the guy that's the subject of the thread shows, you don't even have to be able to personally add a dmoz link to be an extremely good SEO. This is a non-issue to me because in the 8+ years there I've seen little in this area to worry about.

 

Again, I am not hiding behind Annie. Her getting fired was why I left, and everyone here knows that. You are the one bringing up my edit counts. Mind telling us how many you had in the first 2.5 months? Or even how many you've had in the last 2.5 months?

I do not need a large edit count to see that paid listings are defined in the guidelines as OK, though must admit that as an editor, I did miss that bit.

Funny, I didn't add anything in that first 24 hours, and yes, my site was one of the first three I added, but then, my site was also on the application form and was awaiting review. Are you saying it was wrong of me to skip the reviewed sites? Now can I ask how soon it was after joining the project that you added your site?

OK. I'll stop. Though you have to agree that I've yet to lie. you also must agree that you've been nothing but a troll in this thread and have yet to actually post on topic for well over a page.

Now mind saying getting paid to add links is within the guidelines?

 

The Heroic Saga of Qyrztufre
Q boldly logged into dmoz as a new editor... added his own site and the 2 others on his app, then began furiously playing in his bookmarks.

The balance of his career was a magnificent journey in which he boldly sought out and added THREE MORE SITES. Having now doubled his output and feeling quite drained, he felt it was time to rest, having invested almost 2.5 months tracking down the 3 new sites. Yes, what a journey it was, and a career to be praised. Yes, he added three more sites than absolutely necessary. A man's man.

Suddenly, he quit... forever divesting ODP of the hope that maybe in another few months he could have discovered three more and firmly planted the lizard flag on their shores. If there'd only been enough months that year.

Yes he found his morals challenged. Not by the guidelines, which of course he hadn't read... no... there was a damsel in distress. Bravely he trolled into the fora and made more posts than the sites he'd added.

Finally he fearlessly cast aside his career of days without regret... impervious to the laughter of those reading his righteous posts. He felt the sacrifice was worth it because it did beat hell outta being expected to add sites, & he could come here and play "expert" now that he had this vast experience.​

LOL. Q... Quit accusing others if you personally didn't have the nads to step up to the plate and do a job while you could. Your objections don't cover your lazy self interested history. You took the first exit you thought made you look like a hero. You aren't to be taken seriously.

Hate to spoil your fun, but mine was in Dmoz before I became an editor. Not everyone is there just to stick their own site in and hustle out. I've been adding sites for 8 years, mine is in the directory in one spot. I do have the joke stuff in my bookmarks... maybe you can make that sound abusive.

So far you appear more of an abuser than the fella you started the thread to smear.

 

You must at least read your own posts so you won't post such a conflicting posts. In your previous post you mentioned that any procedure or guideline that stops corruption and abuse, the editors will consider it as "intolerably draconian set of rules" and will not join or edit anymore and now you are claiming it is just a hobby.

Can't you make up your mind? Having difficulty combining the idea of an editor culture that requires the possibility of corruption and abuse while claiming that they are doing it as hobby?

 

No conflict there G. I already said NO rules CAN totally stop all abuse, not that any rules that would stop abuse would be draconian. So if draconian rules would not do the job and nobody is likely to volunteer to work under draconian rules, I don't see them as an advantage.

That doesn't change the fact that we hear a lot more about abuse than we actually see when we inspect the source sited. Abuse happens sometimes, sure, if it's caught they're gone, if not it continues til they get caught. Not that complicated.