Are the DMOZ editrors truly at the switch?

We accept commercial sites too, just check out the shopping category.

Fastreplies, why won't you reply to my request, I have answered your questions as best as I am able. Though you do want to twist and attack what I have said.

 

I'm going to deal with my "how many sites you have included" point later but for now
I want you to tell me if the following statement is correct or false
but be careful because wrong answer can backfire and destroy your reputation

BTW, if you can't print dot, can you stamp your foot once for Yes twice for No?

fastreplies

 

Barring server problems, there is indeed a permanent record of every edit every single editor makes.

 

Thank you Jim, but why are you saving his ***?

So, you have records which site has been pulled from Pending review bin and which sites editors
found somewhere else and brought to your attention as a candidates for inclusion, correct?

fastreplies

 

With quite some work, that would be possible, but it is not included in the list that is kept that records the site and the action taken, so it means returning back to the edit and then seeing if it was suggested or added by the editor. So perhaps to pre-empt your question, with a good deal of work and my time I could probably back track my edits. That, would only be useful, if someone wanted to see how an editor had been working, but I have no intention of wasting my time doing that for what is a puerile exercise.

In reality it often depends on the category that one is working, if I know that there are sites available and none suggested I would certainly use non suggestions, if their are sites suggested and the category is full of spam suggestions then I would likely as not work through most of the spam and delete it and move sites offered to that category wrongly. If I had enough time I might then work through the other suggestions and see what has been offered and list some/most/all. Perhaps leaving some for another editor who wants to work that category.

 

I wasn't saving anybody's bacon. I was simply responding to your simple question with a simple answer. Your deliberately provocative behaviour in this thread and editor baiting in general has ensured that I shan't see any more of your posts here . Have a nice life.

 

Is Anonymously's bacon cerispy and greasy ? ROFL

Waste of time dealing with such. I agree. Look at this thread where comprehension is far and beyond.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1762582&page=4

 

I call it seeking the truth.
After all you (editors) are coming here and posting in this forum to provide some help with issues
members of DP may have. I am one of those members who want to hear not just generalization
of some issues but every trifling detail about subjects of my interest.

If you aren’t capable or unwilling to come up with straight and honest answer, then don’t blame it on us
for asking questions about subject you rather not to answer in order to avoid eye-opening truth.

I made the following statement

and what a surprise none of you come forward and disputed validity of my statement.

Every time some guy would ask senseless how or why or when and so on, you would jump on
“here is my advice wagon” and here you have subject that will make outstanding debate but none of you
can be found insight to keep that debate rolling.

If you can’t to deal with issues that too hot to touch for you then don’t be offended if people in this forum
are treating you like a shit. Every moron, including myself, can answer easy and meaningless questions
but the trick is to have enough of intellect to deal with hot and sometimes unpleasant once.

Remember Jim, the truth will set you free

fastreplies

 

I have ignored your silly rude remarks once but will not do so twice. I do not intend to carry on a conversation with someone who insists on behaving in such a childish way.

 

I tell you what is rude

Rude is accusing someone in wrong-doing without any evidence.
Rude is twisting the facts even after you know that you are spreading lies.
Rude is acting as if you smarter than everybody around you.

Shall I continue?

Now, what conversation are you talking about? So far all I can hear from you is your leg tapping
and see incoherent set of words that make as much sense to me as Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

You have an opportunity to prove me wrong by debating my point
DMOZ doesn't own that data and itself in violation of Copyrights.
or run from debate and show to everybody who you really are and your real value in this forum.

fastreplies

 

What is the real kicked, recently I used the guidelines to back up my point and he followed up saying I was still wrong! So it's really nice when they serve only HALF of the time.

For instance, the guidelines say the ODP is a SERVICE, the guidelines point to added sites being LISTINGS yet DMOZ is NOT a listing service *boggle*

The guidelines claim that a site can be rejected if it's submitted to the wrong category, yet Anon seems to claim that part of the guidelines is a total lie and that an editor would never ever EVER do such a horrible thing... you know, a horrible thing like FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES!

So it's good to see that the guidelines still serve something... but as to what, I am at a loss...

Changed content? OMG, check your listings, it's likely been removed!

 

Site is suggested to the wrong category. Editor reviews it sees it is not listeable. What does editor do? Send it to another category to be rejected there? No editor rejects it. Guidelines say sites sent to wrong category will either be rejected or moved. Site is listable, editor moves it to correct category., Simple.

 

There's a sucker born every minute, a DMOZ link is worth exactly ZERO.

Guess who stopped submitting her sites back in 2007? I'm just ahead of the times, that's all.

 

Correction:
It worth 1 backlink
Zero only if you are not blessed by it majestic touch



fastreplies

 

LOL, maybe as guidance for editors to let them know which of them they can to ignore with vengeance.

Take for example this one:
Keep the description of your site brief - no longer than 25-30 words

Well, 99% of descriptions in DMOZ are limited to 2 - 4 words.
How something like that could happened?

In my opinion editors purposely ignore guidelines they should enforce
if they can allow listings with 2 - 4 words descriptions. or in simple words
Guidelines are for suckers




fastreplies

 

Yet another lie Some edits may not be perfect but 99% being 2-4 words is garbage. I suppose with almost 5 million sites we cant have 100% perfection

http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/Organizations/Oceania/Australia/
http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Oceani...alities/E/East_Maitland/Business_and_Economy/
http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Oceani.../Penrith/Business_and_Economy/Legal_Services/
http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Pets/Supplies/Varied_Merchandise/

There is just 4 random cats that are totally the opposite of your claim.