Why doesn't DMOZ use nofollow

Who told u that wiki is not controlled when some does an edit? Also who told u dmoz is controlled by editor ? Its controlled by eMetas and not by editors.

Cheers

 

Actually AOL staff that are admins are in charge of Dmoz, and some Non-staff admins.

 

One simple reason, if they had no follow, then 90% of DMOZ editors will disappear. Look at number of DMOZ editors who were spamming wiki before and how it has decreased sincde with exception the pages that they need to control so it will generate traffic for DMOZ.

 

Even if DMOZ uses no-follow, there is still the Google copy of it (and the 1000's of others) that do not .... assuming the dup filter has not filtered out them all.

 

That's what i think as well, my point was; DMOZ should be honest with their major rule about applications:

 

There is no person called DMOZ and by your statement, I gather that you are not editor and don't know the Admins and Metas in DMOZ.

Let's just say that honesty is the last thing on their mind.

 

Agrees and raises both hand in favor

 

I've meant its' top management with the word DMOZ, but you are right, i'm not an editor and have no relationship at all with any of them, i'd think this'd be done long before if honesty was involved. When i state this in resource-zone the reaction was more like "wtf?????? nooooo!"

But well, i'll say this wherever anyway

 

The below statement was an answer to the very same question asked on this thread. Why doens't DMOZ just use a nofollow tag?

This is coming from an DMOZ editor.

Ministrel if your reading this, please think back to the debate we had about the DMOZ clones. This editor here is saying in the above quote that DMOZ will always be valuable to PR / SEO, therefore if DMOZ adds no follow, it doesn't mean all the clones will add it too.

 

Please keep in mind that DMOZ editors are individuals voicing their own personal opinion. No DMOZ editor has the authority to speak for the ODP or give an official statement.

Sorry for the interruption, carry on.

 

I dont get this why are we discussing this ? Dmoz/odp staff (not those eMetas) is never actually gonna even see this thread ever. So what difference does it make if dmoz uses nofollow or not ? We all have to just suck it up and go on with our daily life.

 

I could careless as of now. I'm more interested in the "DMOZ clones" then DMOZ itself.

 

Well the guy u should be contacting is minstrel he knows what he is talking about most of the time other than the fact that he is a bot

 

I don't know the structure of RDF dump, is it possible to insert "nofollow" as default in it, so it stays that way unless changed by the user? They could also state it in the License maybe as it should be kept, if that feature is possible. I don't think clones have a desire to spread backlinks for free anyways.

Even not; "clones will use it anyway" wouldn't be a pretext since DMOZ isn't supposed to draw its roadmap according to its' clones. Besides clones don't have the strength of DMOZ surely.

I'd just say "Oh Come on!" to this.

That's the community of "volunteers" which like 90% would just disappear if nofollow took place. Maybe it could be said as "Corruption is not seen as an illegal behaviour by DMOZ editing community" (exceptions(10%-) don't break the rule)

 

You not taking the editors seriously doesn't make them less significant. They are the ones who keep the directory running - to the extent that it's not crawling that is.

Anyhow, rel-nofollow was designed for non-editorial links. and whatever you may say of dmoz: it's links are surely editorial. And yes, editors do get monitored by meta's - so the most rampant abuse does get edited out. All in all, for editors what we complain about is spam submissions. Luckily the spam has gotten less recently, so editing is once again actual fun.

I think for many of the subjects I work with - google results would really be a lot less useful if dmoz used rel-nofollow. I've seen the effect of filling out a category in dmoz in google the next week - and that wasn't three years ago.

 

Well if they do it nofollow, we'll see how many volunteers will be left working, that'll be an answer to this, and a good statistic of what was actually going on. Till then i don't expect any editor speak any different than yourself.

 

Either you are not editor or you don't know what you are talking about or you know what happens and as beneficial for you to defend it. Why should editors edit out the abusive listings when they are the one who are doing it.

A necessary requirement to be abusive and corrupt is the fact that you have to be senior editor, normal editors can not do anything with exception as being used as number to show that DMOZ has a lot of editors.

 

Lost in translation?

Editors do more then just show up to increase numbers, and can themselves be corrupt. While some of the blame you are pushing onto the senior editors belongs with them, some of it also belongs to a handful of editors that are only there to get their sites listed or to sell their services.

As for why should editors edit out abusive listings, I've been and editor for a bit over a week, and in that time I've reported/removed more sites then I've added due to redirecting submissions and spam (in fact, yesterday I reported an entire category!)

As for why, the answer is simple, so I can do my part to make dmoz (and it's clones) as user-friendly and as spam free as I possibly can. Though, I guess I should point out, my category is non-commercial, hardly competitive, and within a fairly small niche... so *shrug* Then again, I guess quality should start at the bottom
Q

 

LOL, wait a little bit longer before you become an expert about DMOZ. My newest editor account is much older than yours.

New editors can try to abuse the system but their power is so limited that it almost has no effect. The real abuse and corruption is caused by "senior" editors. A friendly advice, be careful about what you are reporting since if you report one of the categories or listings that belongs to a powerful senior editor, you will soon notice that you can not login to your editor panel.

 

It's certainly true that only higher up editors can really abuse the system - and they know the system too well, to risk it in general. I mean - if you want to add a site by a friend, the only way to do that without causing suspicion is by doing more edits in that specific category. And those edits can include checking for redirects, spam and adding competing sites. I usually do the latter.

I'm not saying abuse doesn't happen. I do have good reason to believe the majority of editors doesn't risk it.