Oh give Q a break... sure he only added 3 sites after the 3 on his application, but he did make about 21 other edits. Granted, a third of his total edits were to his own sites, but what the heck. Can't say if I left I'd make talking about it a full time job (he's near 3000 posts and counting without sign of slowing), and maybe he was a slacker as an editor, but at least shows up every day like clockwork for his job as a professional ex-editor. In fairness he isn't the first to spend a tiny time there and then let it take up permanent residence in his brain rent free for the rest of his life. I know a guy that has an 8 year head start on him with the same problem. It's a waste of time, but it's theirs to waste. There are some editors at dmoz that probably like Topix and or Rich less than he does, difference is they don't let it become an all-consuming obsession. If we never took part in any effort unless it was perfect, nobody'd ever get anything done. Dmoz is far from perfect. Still it has value, so a lot of us do what we can. Not a perfect fix, but more productive than griping in here every day.
You are right. I added my site the hard way, manually, and not through an automated bot that got me 10K deep links most of which are duplicate content through syndication. Yeah, yeah, I added my site plus only a hand full of others... but then, if that makes me bad, I assume that Rich has 60K edits to sites that are not his? Yes, yes, me adding a site that wasn't mine sure was worse then him adding nothing but his own. No wonder I'm accused of favoritism and he is defended And it's not an obsession. Just once again pointing out that there is corruption. Someone in the thread asked for proof. I gave an instance of a single editor with over 10K listings. *shrug* Not my fault if that is considered corruption in the eyes of the many...
Dmoz has not been any good for years now. No reason to worry about links just submit urls and forget them. I had sites listed and they took some out. Nothing you can do google should not value the site at all.
Just curious... so dont yell at me but is it really that big of a deal to get listed on dmoz? Does it really help serps and PR that much?
Please... Warn me before you do that. I just blew diet coke all over my laptop. No, making several posts a day for over half a year to the tune of 3000 posts isn't an obsession. What was I thinking? The directory works the same with or without the Topix links. If it bothers anyone, boils down to learning to deal with an imperfect world. You do the best you can with the material available. Some of us here are building something. Not a perfect something, but if it was a total non-entity I doubt you'd have an audience for the multiple-daily rants or a forum to have 'em in. OTOH if you ever do anything productive send up a flare. It's easy to only contribute if conditions are perfect, there'd never be anyplace that fit the description.
Please... Warn me before you do that. I just blew diet coke all over my laptop. No, making several posts a day for over half a year to the tune of 3000 posts isn't an obsession. What was I thinking? The directory works the same with or without the Topix links. If it bothers anyone, boils down to learning to deal with an imperfect world. You do the best you can with the material available. Some of us here are building something. Not a perfect something, but if it was a total non-entity I doubt you'd have an audience for the multiple-daily rants or a forum to have 'em in. OTOH if you ever do anything productive send up a flare. It's easy to only contribute if conditions are perfect, there'd never be anyplace that fit the description.
Speaking of obsessions... you are talking about my edit count again. If making that information does not fall under the confidentiality guidelines, then mind sharing with us just how many edits that Skrenta has? And then how many of those are not to sites he is affiliated with? No, there is a difference. A huge difference. Without Topix, the ODP is one step closer to being corruption free. And each time someone says the ODP is corruption free, I'll point them to 10k deep links that a human didn't add in, and that all belong to a single editor. Maybe if the editors would stop saying that the ODP is corruption free, I'd stop bringing up the corruption... and if it's not corruption, the explain how so many editors got fired for listing their own sites or for favoritism...as if listing thousands of links to duplicate content is not a sign of that, then what is? Or tell me how DMOZ is not a mockery? So many people fired for listing their own sites manually, yet one editor has 10K DEEP links, many of which are nothing but spider food, and he logged in just recently and will likely log in again. You call me out for listing the three sites on my app plus three more sites, yet you defend someone that had 10k listings automated? Tell me how that in itself is not a mockery?
Q, sorry, my English is not good enough - probably havent understand something... Where exactly Rob defends Topix listings? BTW, it seems to me that Topix is very serious problem in your life...ignore it, or post about it, and feel better. I am working now to improve my English; look at what I find in Wiki: Hope that you dont want to become such one? Regards
Corruption FREE? I'd be interested to see an editor make that claim. Me, always said there's less than our detractors say, but repeatedly I've said it is NOT perfect. You wanna spend every day furiously trying to refute an argument nobody's making, knock yourself out. Not sure what it pays, but it's an intriguing job description.
Q, I realise that you are determined to keep making this point, but please - skrenta has FAR MORE STANDING in the ODP than being an editor. Bob Keating, the Editor-in-chief, is an editor, every member of AOL paid staff is an editor. Any editor asking for equivalent treatment with Skrenta is, to be honest, utterly ridiculous. You otherwise make some excellent points on here, but you really need to stop on that piece of logic, because it is fundamentally flawed. Debating the correctness of someone coming to AOL and asking for a link on every page of the directory and getting one added is certainly an issue, as I, and others, have acknowledged. But claiming that because Skrenta can do it, every editors should be able to is, frankly, ludicrous. The ODP, like any large organisation, can not claim to be free of corruption. Anybody that claims that is out of their head. However, there is a huge gap between saying that there is SOME and saying that the whole directory (and that follows, all editors) is corrupt.
That's true, but most organizations are NOT set up to let corruption run rampant and when it is discovered most organizations make changes so that at the very least the corruption is brought under reasonable control. dmoz seems to just make up excuses and/or deny that anything is wrong. dmoz has been aware of the holes that allow editors to manipulate dmoz for ten years now and no changes have been made, "because not every editor is doing it" but the fact is that NO editor should be allowed to manipulate dmoz for personal gain.
What? Why is that ludicrous? Either it's okay or it isn't - if it is okay then everyone should be able to do it, if it isn't okay then no one should be able to do it.
No prob, Winifred, if you can't percieve any difference between an editor and the founder, no amount of logic (however obvious) will cure it. Meanwhile in the real world, my feelings about Topix don't matter (oddly AOL didn't consult anyone in this forum for permission)... nor does the existence of those links decrease the directory's ability to help anyone find sites, or stop it from offering some increased visibility for millions of websites collected by rank and file editors. Can't really get worked up as some of you.
thats like asking , why there is a link to DigitalPoint Soutions - http://www.digitalpoint.com/ in the footer of this forum , where everyone else is trying to buy sig links from others .
I'm a volunteer, but I'm sure you'd not understand working for free I'm not saying that all editors are corrupt. Just saying that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Though if you scroll up to the first post I replied too, you may see someone seemingly of the mind that there is no corruption...
Apparently you can read minds then, cause if you're referring to budalata, he didnt say that. He just suggested naming names and reporting abuse with proof via the proper channel. Still can't find a single instance of what you indicate we won't stop saying... If that is true, how hard could it be to give one example where an editor makes that claim? You brought it up, we're still waiting for a link to a single post where an editor 'says ODP is corruption free'. Without a link... it becomes rather obvious you make up "facts" for your own convenience.
You are right, I am wrong. I appoligize. There isn't an editor that feels DMOZ is corruption free, because every editor knows DMOZ is corrupted on some level. Is that better? Thanks again for once again clearing things up. You have shown me that paid links are OK, and now that all editors feel that DMOZ has corruption. Maybe there is a connection there...