IS DMOZ still relevant?

You're right.

If your site is NOT piece of crap, there is very little or not a chance it will be listed.



fastreplies

 

Calm down dudes. Thanks for your informations and points.

 

I think dmoz still important for seo point of view.

 

Positive feedback for completed transactions for DMOZ listings on 3rd party sites like scriptlance are not proof enough for the ODP, so just what are you asking for?

And as for corruption, look it up, then count the times the ODP itself fits within that?

If a site does not fit the guidelines should it be removed?
If a site does not fit the guidelines should it be even added to begin with?

If you answer YES to either of those questions, then there is the proof of your corruption in and of itself, and it's corruption starting from the very top!

Topix is an affiliated site from an editor, it is treated better then other sites = a broken guideline
Topix was added by a bot, not an editor = Broken integrity (Largest HUMAN edited directory?)
Topix has nearly 20,000 links on the odp, deeplinks are a rule of thumb = a broken guideline
Topix links in DMOZ largely consist of synidcated content (non-original) = a broken guideline

The ODP is corrupt from the top down, and if Topix is not enough for you to see that, then I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept the truth. If it's NOT a sign of corruption, then why does it break sooooo many rules that you are supposedly supposed to follow? If the guidelines do not need to be followed for one site owned by editors, why would they need to be followed for other editor owned sites?

Here is another site with 35 deeplinks. It's also an editor owned site....
http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=luckymojo.com&cat=all&all=no

Funny that there is no corruption...

Why is it you keep asking for "hard proof" then turn the other way when it's posted?

Explain my examples away...

 

Owning the directory and listing TOPIX is not corruption.....your same ole claims Get with the times Q.......

I want proof where we can see that Mr X paid Mr Y such and such amount and he listed THIS SITE.com against the guidelines. Thats proof

I have never claimed we have not had an abusive editor, I just get pissed when people say DMOZ IS CORRUPT. Out of the thousands of Editors weve had its commonsense that a few would have been removed for various issues, but casting a slur over everyone, is not right.

Especially when EX-editors like Q have an obvious intention of simply trying to make DMOZ look bad.

 

Q and even snooks doesn't make DMOZ look bad... DMOZ does.
DMOZ policies, management, ill mindset makes DMOZ look bad.



fastreplies

 

Oops!I heard this news today and thanks for letting me know.I will reconsider DMOZ and submit again.

 

DMOZ is only relevant to editors so you can list your own sites...

 

You are simply talking garbage

 

Hmmm....that leaves me with a difficulty, I have been an editor for 10 years and I DON'T have a web site. Anyone willing to lend me one so that I can justify my editor existence and my 30,000 edits?

 

You must be in the minority....

 

I noted that apology. As Snooks says, you talk garbage. Did you have any proof or evidence or was it just plainly invented, just like your statements about corruption and corrupt editors. You sit at your puter and see what allegations you can make up...wonder what load of crap you will type next?

 

Here is the proof again, since you seem to ignore the "evidence" of corrupt editors, 277 pages of open jobs of editors selling guaranteed DMOZ listings on freelancer.com... is that what the editors at DMOZ do? insult people and give them negative reps when they are presented with proof of corrupt editors? I'm glad glad I don't waste my time with idiots like you, by trying to get included in a useless directory. Instead of trying to address the problem, you result to insulting and giving negative reps to people, keep up the bad work...

 

Ami i mistaken or is the link you provided people asking for links in DMOZ, not exactly DMOZ Editors selling links.......a huge difference

http://www.freelancer.com/projects/arc-tag/dmoz-listing.html

There certainly is no way of knowing for sure that the person claiming to be a dmoz editor, actually is an editor.

 

I am not telling you anything, I just provided proof that DMOZ has a huge corruption problem, and you guys result to insults and negative reps? Way to Keep it professional... When did bringing allegations of corruption become stupid statements? I don't think you're tired of people making "stupid statements" but tired of how many people that say that DMOZ is corrupt... There is a saying, "where there is smoke, there is fire"

For the third ignored time, here is proof....

 

For the second time you have posted a link that dosent work.

Perhaps the link is corrupt

You have provided nothing but people advertising to buy a link. You say we resort to insults....amazing considering every second person in here claims every editor is corrupt or is only an editor to list his own sites. You dont think i find that insulting? Neg Reps (RAFL) I just keep getting infractions.

For the record i have 15 or so sites and only 1 is listed in DMOZ and it was listed before i even became an editor.

 

lol the link is corrupt, sorry about that... http://www.freelancer.com/projects/arc-tag/dmoz-listing.html

Those are 227 pages of people looking to buy guaranteed inclusion into DMOZ, but as you can see they have bids... I don't think people here are saying that all editors are corrupt, but there is no doubt that alot are corrupt... It is a hell of alot easier to buy a guaranteed listing in DMOZ then it is to simply submit and hope you get inclusion...

 

I'm going to apply to become an editor. I'll get back to you with my experience soon.

 

edit: was going to make a snide remark, but will let you guys do that amongst yourselves.

 

Well I have never seen any proof or evidence (or even given a chance to defend myself) of why was I removed but didn't prevent metas from removing with only explanation that I managed to squeeze out of makrhod on this forum was that they "found out" about me!?? I didn't know I was hiding something besides my Playboy collection??

Even after I published my top secret editing logs you still failed to find single piece of proof or evidence and that was two years ago!

Even GWB admitted there were no WMD in Iraq but DMOZ refuses to admit to anything and public should believe DMOZ has any credibility left??? (I admit at lest they didn't hire Glenn Beck as spokesperson yet) Next wikileaks should target DMOZ, I bet material would be much more juicy then current one.

After years of failure DMOZ refuses to change its way while wikipedia is thriving thanks to its openness and ability to implement policy changes by entire community not just a few self-promoted editors with absolute power.

Happy 2011 from Balkans where grudge holding last for centuries!