Q, dear, I know that you disrespect our Guidelines, but you can take a look at: Just saw your profile - new occupation? Congrats
That pretty much sums it all up. Good job! I'm curious how many people have actually noticed traffic coming from these directories.
When I'm told by editors that following the guidelines are shaky what do you expect? Though, you are correct, so thank you for clarifying. However, you should find that most affiliate sites fit within the exclusion, so I was mostly right Also, ALL affiliate sites offer something other sites offer, which does fit within the no duplicate sites, and is often the reason that MANY sites do not get added. Look around at the posts here at Digital Point, or even over at RZ, and you'll find that my statement was a bit truer then what is said in the guidelines. EDIT: Sites that are not purely affiliate can and do often make it in, as in many cases affiliate pages are only a small part of the overall page. Those, as a general rule do not qualify as being "affiliate" in nature, as that is not the main reason for the page. Then again, they are only guidelines and not rules, so I guess it truly falls down to the whim of the editor that happens across it. Thanks for once again trying to make yet another thread about me... though my profile has not been changed in a rather long time.
And I like to congratulate you for replacing crowbar as permanent A** kisser of DMOZ. I suppose even Bulgaria is no longer part of former east block, it is difficult to change the praise the leader mentality of it's citizens.
Thanks, what a nice compliment... to be compared with crowbar I am confused ...are you writing this with the idea to prove this definition from Wiki about trolling?
You mean like someone that has brought up my occupation in two threads dealing with DMOZ? Though, I guess it's good to know that Affiliate sites are listable... so thanks for correcting me on that part of the thread.
Previously it has great effect on SEO but now maybe less value since they don't usually approved links (of course they want some money $$$ for inclusion)... Google still use this ODP as their web directory...
That's the truth that DMOZ now accepts bribery... Take a look at this case in this link --> http://www.shoemoney.com/2007/08/26/dmoz-extortion/ "Whoever gives me red rep I'm not actually advising to pay for DMOZ to get inclusion since we know the facts that DMOZ has a lot of corrupt editors...." :-( For me, I just go for other quality directories aside from focusing on DMOZ alone...
One of my favorites Bulgarian writers wrote this: By Yordan Yovkov Translated by David M. Jones Matches well here. A lot of anguish and sorrow here
Do you believe everything you read and accept it as truth, restating it as fact on other sites? I didn't think you would do something like that.
There are many facts that DMOZ has plenty of corrupt editors... Maybe those who put a red rep on me is a DMOZ editor... The truth hurts.. That's the facts.. Not just shoemoney that I have read many facts... because they say DMOZ sucks... I'd rather not waste my time on DMOZ but on other quality directories out there... I didn't mean to say that all dmoz editors are corrupt, some aren't. Here's another facts that DMOZ corruption really happened.... http://www.joostdevalk.nl/the-dmoz-mob-strikes-again/ http://www.blogherald.com/2006/08/26/corrupt-dmoz-editors/ http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/2610-5-30.htm http://www.webmaster-forum.net/showthread.php?t=569 http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/2005/05/dmoz-editors-are-laughing-at-your.html http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=5999 http://news.stepforth.com/2005-news/May25-05.html
You must remember that this thread is about how much SEO value that DMOZ can give, and the answer must be at least some... otherwise there would not be thousands of sites listed for single sites listed as affiliates to certain editors... http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=topix.com] And if there was no value, then people would not pay for listings, and editors like Skrenta] would have stopped logging in to add even more affiliated links. So you can see, while such listings are surrounded by controversy it is also clear that there is some value to those links or they would not bother. Also when listing corruption "facts" it's best to leave the ones open to speculation out and go for the ones where there is no question... like to ODP links themselves. That way when they say you are misquoting, or misleading people can have a look for themselves and see it right there in the directory...
You have passed 3000 posts on this forum, so how much value did you get from all those DMOZ related posts?
Cool, I'll have to hang around here more often... maybe I should attempt to fake my way back into DMOZ so I can get my hands on some cool stuff, but I think user names ivantheterrible or themole might give me away too easily so I'll have to think of something else.
@thunderbolt, so if I can paste you twenty links of people that claim that they have been kidnapped by aliens, does that make it incontrovertible proof that I can then go and spout all over the internet as "fact"? The government MUST be lying to us! Have there been corrupt editors in the ODP? Yes, there have. Have the senior editors done their best to weed them out? Yes, they have. Have they ever made a mistake? Yes, I'm sure they have. Does this mean that the whole organization is corrupt? Not necessarily. Does it mean that it's possible to pay to get a site listed in the ODP that otherwise wouldn't be? Possible yes, but very risky. I fail to understand why a webmaster who is truly interested in getting their site promoted should care quite so much about the internal goings-on at the ODP. Submit it and forget it, and move on and earn your money promoting your sites. I have seen many of the internal goings-on at the ODP and believe me, if there is systemic corruption, it's remarkably well hidden.