do you trust dmoz?

I trust DMOZ. I applied to be an editor and was rejected, I indicated that one reason I wanted to be an editor was there were no editors in the category I wanted to list my own site (the category I applied for). This might have been my downfall I don't know, but I've had no emails offering me bribes to list my site so I have no reason not to trust them.

 

imho its not woth the time or effort.
ive spent lots of time trying to get in with several sites and dont even know if my my application even got looked at,, dmoz is over rated and not as much link love comes from it as it used too.
I can spend my time better by building links elsewhere.

 

Sorry, the freelance stuff literally provides evidence there ISN'T institutional corruption present. Here's why:

If anyone posts a URL it will not only NOT be included, it gets banned. There have been sparse instances of editors caught selling inclusions, and every time it is discovered it results in an editor removal. ​

That means there isn't institutional corruption, just sporadic cases of dirt that they clean up on sight.

Regardless, even if it was actual POLICY to sell via scriptlance (obviously not, but follow the thought)... it still doesn't support your theory for your sites removal. You aren't claiming you refused to pay up on request, you are claiming an editor-as-competitor removal.

If you wanna make a living on the net, start with not believing everything you read on it. If you want to make claims of corruption... use evidence that supports your theory.

 

@trichnosis: you seem to have downgraded your assertion from: all third party listings require payment to editors; to: saying that tons of editors require payment to list third-party websites.

If I assume you mean around five tons of editors, and that the average editor weighs around 150 pounds, then you seem to be asserting that around 60 to 70 editors require payment for listings (I'm assuming a US short ton is the one you are using as a comparative measurement).

That's a considerable downgrading of your original assertion. Can I ask you what evidence has come to light that counters your opening assertion? Have you re-evaluated the information you read on other websites?

 

dmoz can do what they want but any algorithm that gives any consideration more than just a simple backlink should not be allowed

I have seen sites get into dmoz fast and I worry that it is because of a connection to an editor

 

Great... that was the last one needed to complete the entire collection.

So to recap... based on the collective wisdom of various DigitalPoint threads:

• If Dmoz adds a site... it is evidence that they are corrupt.
• If Dmoz removes a site... it is evidence that they are corrupt.
• If Dmoz is slow to list sites... it is evidence they are corrupt.
• If Dmoz is quick to list sites... it is evidence they are corrupt.

Now I see why we're reqiured to hate them, no matter what they do, the suckers are just evil. LOL.
This forum is so much more entertaining than reality.

 

It takes a long time to be added in DMOZ. I think everyone should just sign up as a editor and put their own website, there are only some editors on DMOZ that probably actually goto your website and accept/deny it.

 

Rob put it perfectly

As usual.......someone dosent get in and immediately, its corruption.

As usual.......someone DOES get in and immediately they bribed an editor or bought their way in.

As usual everyone says they dont care........but whinge and complain when they dont get included immediately.

95% of the posts on this part of the forum are just heresay, unadulterated crap or lies. It's all "proof", because they read it somewhere. Remind me not to get YOU to represent me in court.

No matter what happens at dmoz, people will still complain! and make wild, stupid accusations

 

Dmoz is still a very reliable directory, but I agree with your first point that your either paying or you know them to get in. Or wait 3 years

 

i agree dmoz isn't good don't submit your url

so where do I pay

 

getfreelancer (GAF) was ONLY AN EXAMPLE. you can find more & more web site where you can buy or sell dmoz listings. i mean that. GAF is only one of them. i dont care how GAF listings are done, Pls do not comment on the GAF listings. the bad think is that dmoz editors are selling the listing with that way.

But if you have a spam web site or paid to an editor, You will have guranteed & lifetime listing

OMG, We have started again to the math. you have started to play with words and numbers to create confusing.


as i see all dmoz editors are here to defend their editorships .

 

No, I don't but Google does!

 

DMOZ isn't corrupt, however, there are some basic "rules of thumb" in regards to getting your site listed : Age of site, content and useability are pre-requsites that you must meet before you'll get accepted.

Take Rob's DMOZ listed site (texasbesthomes.com) as an example :

#1 - The domain was registered in 1998 (10 years ago)
#2 - The site is straighforward and to the point as far what it's intentions are.
#3 - It's not cluttered with Adsense ads or other ads all over the place

I have 8 sites listed in DMOZ and they are all at least 5 years old. Almost every one took appx. 2 years to get listed, but I only submitted them once and spent all of 10 minutes for each submission.

I currently have several other sites aproaching the 3-5 year mark that I've submitted but I don't go checking every day. Usually it's a suprise when I check backlinks to find my site is listed.

All the whining and crying is useless. Spend your time productively and let the DMOZ editors do their volunteer work and if you have a site that meets up to their criteria, you'll get in eventually.

I'm not a DMOZ editor but I used to be an editor for the now defunct Zeal directory and I can assure you most volunteer directory editors are not getting paid for anything. If there are some, they are few and far between.

 

@Bryce: thanks for the comments but i can show you web sites which are created by sending automatic queries to google and has 2 listings on dmoz. think site that is created with sending automatic queries to google and has 2 listing. is it a quality listing? i dont think so.

some people may say that why dont you report that web site? i have done it over 1 year ago but nobody has checked my abuse report till now

 

I don't doubt there are sites in DMOZ that were added by editors who have no ethics however, you can't throw the baby out with the bath water because of a few rotten apples.

 

like everything else, theres bound to be few bad apples, would you bash the institution? what about congress, the army, green peace, un force etc.

if you got concrete proof why don't come out with it....

 

ok this looks to prove my point more than anything, you said it took appx 2 years to get listed

WELL, I saw a site recently that was purchased by someone that I assume had connections with dmoz, and WITHIN A MONTH that site was listed in DMOZ, and the site had adsense and bidvertiser on it

that is what looks a little shady to me, I hope I am wrong but I don't believe it

Dmoz has no credibility in my mind

 

DMOZ is not a religion to trust or believe in, just the Open Directory project mostly used as any other regular directory or search engine to find specific information.

If your site is listed, that's great because it is considered a type of authority site, but it doesn't worth the effort the time and money pay purchsing domains listed there.

Sooner or later domains are deleted as soon as you change the original content and/or domain contact details.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. However, if it has no credibility then why are you so concerned with sites that are being added or not? I guess those grapes are sour anyway.

 

You'd just quoted me in that post. I'm an EX-editor, and not especially beloved by their management these days anyway. No editorship to defend. Just telling you based on observation during the bulk of the projects lifetime I know you're slandering a lot of hard working volunteers based on a popular but inaccurate web myth.

You appear to think that just because something is constantly repeated on the web it MUST be true.

If so, I have a large sum of money coming from a Nigerian bank. Be back later, I gotta go answer an email.


Added: Seriously, I think you've gotten some attention to your issue, and if there IS any truth to the editor-is-competitor thing they will take care of the situation. If not, they won't. There are rare cases where it happens, but it isn't common. My only point is that there are LOTS of things on the web that are misrepresented... and the myth that most dmoz editors are 'corrupt' is just that, a myth.