Then why did it have a question mark? You asked a question. It was NOT a statement. I answered the question. If you do not want me to take you out of context, then maybe communicate a bit better?
You can do way more damage on wikipedia but they are still letting kids run wild and they get more benefits then damage in return. DMOZ acts as overprotecting parent not letting kids do anything and punishing them for slightest mistake - results of such policy are visible to all. Now I'm tempted to join zombie armies of MMORPG players so I can bash you. Problem with DMOZ is not that is hard to get listed in shopping, problem is that is hard to get listed anywhere, simplest thing to do is remove submissions to spammy categories with warning that attempts to submit such websites to other categories will be deleted immediately and website added to spam blacklist and all future submissions will end up in trash can. Another reason to open up DMOZ so we can all laugh to junk websites - even better create directory of junk websites where visitors can write just how stupid the website looks.
And then complain for getting all those "Why I'm not listed?" inquiries... real masochistic attitude. Imagine how much less noise would it be if there was a public blacklist of junk website which will never get listed like at Wikipedia?
Imagine the issues that would throw up, Wiki do much more than list sites. And if they don't have a problem why has a tool been invented to list anonymous postings and track owners? They might have caught more if they had not laid all their cards on the table. I think this is just fine, let them wonder, let them try and after all they are blacklisted. The less we tell people who try the tricks we see the better.
WoW? Look, the only argument I am making is that if all the editors are saying this is such a big feat to undertake, then why not look for more editors. People have said becoming an editor is like starting kindergarten, ok, then lets get more signed up for school. If my site gets listed or not, big deal. I personally don't care. I am more of a designer, and got sucked up into this SEO bullcrap at my current job because my company wants to sell a product that 85% is not feesibly sellable online due to the nature of the product. And I am not sure of all the reference to shopping directories on DMOZ, I am not even trying to get into that directory, I submitted for the Industrial directory, we are not some pusher of cheap cell phone covers. The references to social status, are only because I have ran into some editors on here that think they are the greatest thing, and as I have stated in previous posts on multiple threads, I am not stepping on any of the toes of the editors that due work their heart out for DMOZ. Great job! But for even those that have to carry the weight of others, why not look for editors while looking for sites. It makes sense. So, once again, I apologize if any editors have been offended by any of my posts, but hey, this is America, we can all whine, moan, bitch as much as we want. So why not all bitch together! I said good day! **edit**In fact, let's not bitch anymore about DMOZ, it has its problems, and its benefits. One thing I have noticed is that everyone is always eager and ready to step up to the plate to complain about something. SO, how about instead of us all going back and forth throwing stones, why not talk about how we can ALL help DMOZ rise back up to its glory. Wow, felt lit a Dr. Phil moment there....
Which makes it much more profitable for spammers since they can actually get real traffic unlike DMOZ. IIRC primary reason was to track down who is vandalizing articles not spammers. If they used DMOZ method they would probably be in same position with few thousand editors out of which only few dozen actually do something and most articles would be stubs with few words instead of having over 9 million articles out of which 2 million in English, most national wikis have more (quality) links listed then so-called most comprehensive human-reviewed directory where many links are outdated or belong into commercial category and could never be listed at wiki. Then stop complaining about losers and their websites made up purely of affiliate links who keep asking why their junk isn't listed - you brought it on yourself since you prefer secrecy instead of having nice pop-up window saying "Your website is junk and it will never get listed so stop submitting!".
Spammers are the same sort of vandals in my eyes, they seek just as much to destroy, ODP needs to protect itself from spammers and Wiki from vandals, they dont do a very good job of protection from what I can see, dozens of corrections to vandalised articles complete waste of editor time. I think by operating as we do we protect ourselves reasonably well, though some do get through.
Wiki added rel="nofollow" to it's links to stop spammers, and it did a pretty good job. I think that DMOZ should consider the same thing, as then they would not be a PR tool like many people seem to think they are now.
Is the argument having a go at the wrong crowd? I agree with most views about Dmoz but they aren't really the people to blame. It's voluntary and yes it pretty much sucks, if it were a business it would have folded long ago but the only reason they get so much flack is because the large companies like Google put so much weight and recommendation on it. Even if that weight doesn't carry as much SEO help as it used to, the Dmoz organisation has still been branded by the bigger companies. Forget the argument about it being a waste of time, that's irrelevant, Google's guidelines have recommended Dmoz and Yahoo directories for years and no others so of course we want to get in there. We all (most of us) want into Google and so we also want to get in to the Google directory and Dmoz is the only way in. The blame should go to Google for placing so much weight on it while leaving it to run as an un-financed shambles, unable to possibly cope with what's thrown at it. No offence to Dmoz people but the place should either catch up, get financed or shut down. Your voluntary service is being excessively used and abused by the big boys and they are walking away unscathed. The internet has moved on and changed drastically over the years but Dmoz is still the same place I was listing sites in six or seven years ago, just a lot busier now and way behind the times.
So your not editor at Wikipedia but form what you can see they aren't doing a good job? But when somebody from outside criticizes DMOZ then you attack him that he knows nothing because he is not editor... Wiki admins have many tools to stop vandals but there is no point of making submissions of valuable content very difficult to impossible for average surfer as DMOZ does it.
Which is wrong way of fighting spammers especially at wikipedia, nofollow does more damage then good because websites wikipedia uses as source get placed in same category as normal external links and any spam not to mention it is complete opposite to web philosophy of linking useful content. Most spammers at wikipedia are there for the traffic benefits not pagerank boost since they get removed relatively quickly but even that short period can bring probably hundreds and thousands of visitors - reason why high traffic articles are blocked to anonymous users. What is need is new system which separates sources from external links. Sources would need approval first but should also be impossible to delete by anyone except admin. External links would be left as is. Even better would be tag which would says this page was source for wikipedia article and google should give it a boost instead of placing wiki article on the top followed by bunch of spam pages which tricked Google algos.
OK, so DMOZ/ODP has lots of flaws and you are questioning why Google uses it. I would be interested in knowing which directory does it better, though - breadth, number of listings, quality of listings, absence of influence from paid placements, etc.
You contradict yourself, why should ODP be shut down because someone else does not use it, in your eyes, correctly? I want to collect sites into an organised order during my spare time, ODP allows me to do that, should I have any concern about how others use the data we release? and if so why? If you were a library and someone copied the books you stocked and they were a massive influential organisation, should the library we stopped from collecting books because authors thought the vast organisation was using their power wrongly by only copying the small library. As you said your complaint is with Google, I am sure they participate in open forums like this and at least listen to what you have to say, don't they? Or perhaps you could take the argument onto the Google forum here.