Is it possible to pay to get listed in DMOZ?

If you have given the 3 requested links, and reported all these facts in your submission your are lucky to become editor.

 

Good one Bulalata: of course I am going to give you url's and perhaps my bank card and my pin numbers.......

what i meant by feedback ( as you already know ) is the fact of offering "feedback" of where they are going wrong on the submission * or even a plain ol rejection.

for the very OBVIOUS reasons i am not going to post urls.

Also. can we stop making thiny veiled acusations of myself or anyone else making payments to editors ( not you bulalata ), unless the poster actually makes this admission. I know it goes on we know and yes i have got listed, paid for a service to get listed ( and no i was not told he was an editor )

 

Becoming an editor is a privledge, not a right, . The most important qualities are total honesty, and the ability to understand and follow instruction, I think.

Only meta editors are qualified to answer that. (which I'm not)

 

seems to haved repeated itself

 

Why? Everything we operate by is contained in our very clearly written guidelines, which are open to the public in our Help section. Easy to get to, easy to understand. No mystery about it.

If a site is rejected, it's for one of two reasons. Either it's the type of site we won't list (and there's a list of those), or it lacks something important (unique content).

I'm not usually thinly veiled about anything, I say it straight out, and I have no reason to accuse you of anything, . The topic of paying for a listing came up and I answered it quite plainly I thought.

If you want me to say something that's clearer, I will. Anyone who gets caught trying to bribe an editor will be banned, along with his sites.

There is nothing wrong with paying a person to use his knowledge of this or any other directory, to help you get listed, that's perfectly legitimate. I've seen webmasters who specialized in RE sites and knew our guidelines send in well written titles and descriptions and I could always spot those right away and listed them. It's a very smart thing to do, I'm all for it.

 

In relation to feedback ( from an end users point on view ) not from a CB ham radio editor point of view. it would be helpful to the end user that feedback rejection is better than a tick box rejection. If the sites are hand submitted, then manually okayed or rejected then it would be helpful to the submitter on why the site was rejected.

Also on another note: I love the directory but one of the posters do have a point, there are so many dead sites listed and then so many awful sites listed that are no more than templates. it cannot take that long to unlist dead sites from the directory - probably less than 5 minutes running a script.

oops i have another "Also". There are dodgy charactor that are editors: its a comment rather than a question. but somethings got to give in relation to "how editors are taken on in the first place"

 

lmbo at the ham radio reference, love it, .

To you the "end user" is the submitter. To the Directory, the "end user" is the web surfer looking for specific information about a topic or geographic area, so right off the bat your premise is incorrect.

Which is why what would be helpful to the submitter is inconsequential, it isn't whom we serve.

Actually, we have automated tools that do just that, and set them aside for us. Then, we examine each one and try to resolve the issue. Many times an owner or organization change urls without telling us, so we try to find the new one, if it exists, before we delete the site.

As far as awful sites, we don't judge site design. Web surfers look for information, not the prettiest site, so all we're really interested in as editors is the unique content that might or might not be on a site, that's our only criteria for listing a site. Does it have unique content for the category itself, which is what we do, build categories, .

If you talk to some of the people who have been unsuccessful at becoming editors, I'm pretty sure they'll tell you the qualifications for becoming one are too stringent. We've got a few strange ones, but I don't think any of them are dodgy, lol. Not sure exactly what you mean, maybe you could explain and give me some examples of editors you personally know to form such an opinion.

 

You are wrong, the obvious answer is a big YES. Search in this forum for one of my old thread with title DMOZ price list and you will see that you can buy a DMOZ link for less than $100.

 

No mystery? Then why is following the guidelines shaky advice according to some editors?

What types of sites won't DMOZ list? I mean other then sites owned by Shoemoney... Child porn, adult content, and all types of other smut are within the pages of the ODP.

And as for "unique content" you mean like all those wikipedia pages listed, and those syndicated Topix listings

So what you are saying is that YES paid listings are allowed on a don't ask don't tell basis As you said "anyone who get's caught"

Editors can work as those very same professionals and skip the middle man by being one him (or her) self.

 

Yo, Q, you're welcome to your opinions, and the readers here can either believe you, or listen to a current editor with years of experience. People usually believe what they'd like to hear anyway, , but I honestly think they'd be better off believing what I tell them as being accurate.

I don't really come here to argue with anybody, or backhand anyone, just to state the facts as I know them.

 

Just to be clear (again) Christopher it is your pseudo-guidelines that are shaky. Eg your 6 month rule amongst others.

 

Now you are getting help from Jim. Can't you back up your shaky claim on your own nebby? heck, I even started a thread on it that's now seemingly gone. Though the original comment still stands and you've yet to actually say WHY following the guidelines is shaky other then having claimed I didn't mention Unique content (which SHOULD be in the guidelines I said to follow).

Also, establishing a site is an important aspect of getting listed, as having it established IS in part having it completed. Having a site that is not finished yet should never make it in, where as an established site that followed the guidelines should have no trouble. Disagree?

 

It depends what do you mean by finished, do you mean unique content and useful information? In this case, I have to disagree since DMOZ is full of one page template site with no content with exception of link to affiliate site or misleading links that works as a doorway for other sites.

 

Yes, I disagree. A site that's not finished yet is impossible to determine, unless you're a mind reader, . If you mean a site still under construction, then it depends.

A site that is mostly finished and already has a lot of unique content, can be listed at the editors discretion, though we prefer the site not be submitted while still under construction, it's a dumb move by the submitter.

When editors do get a site like that, they usually just keep it in unreviewed and in their watchlist, so they can check up on it. If there is no sign of being worked on or completed in a couple of months, I usually delete them.

It doesn't matter if a site is completed and has the best of best site designs, if it doesn't have the unique content we're looking for it will be deleted. We DO NOT judge a sites design or the skill of the site builder, it's a non issue, has nothing to do with what we're looking for.

Web surfers are looking for information, not the prettiest site, that's a webmaster thing. Only they are impressed by ability, the rest of us aren't,

 

So, you are correct, and I am once again completely wrong.

What you are saying is that the site must be done unless it's not, look good unless it doesn't and do this unless that's not done, and do that unless you don't want to and that it all boils down to which editor you know and that editors whim. I guess Nebby was right, the guidelines are shaky...

 

Not shaky, Q, deliberately flexible to allow for the human touch, editor discretion, otherwise it could simply be automated and there would be no need for editors.

In the end it would be a completely different product, and good sites would be so buried in spam that they would never be found. The trouble with an automated system is that it is predictable, and once the "rules by which it operates" are figured out, the whole system can be "worked" by those who know how.

 

LOL.

Nice name for organizational corruption, only a crawler could come up with such description.

 

Ahhh... so what you are saying is that they really are not needed at all, and that all the room they are taking up can be condensed down to one little paragraph stating that editor discretion is all that it takes.... that would certainly explain MANY of complaints on the project and shut many people up that are doing the complaining. Maybe that's something they can do for their next april fools joke... only they won't need to bother changing it back on the second. However, parts of the project ARE automated... though unless editors actually begin to OWN all of the internet, then they will still need editors, as there is no point in automating webmaster submissions, unless of course that webmaster is also an editor]...

maybe if DMOZ actually had a few standards to uphold fewer people would would be saying 'dmox sux' *shrug*

 

Why would I be corrupt? Unlike you, I have a Real World business, with a walk in, brick and mortar location, not a hyber business that depends on Internet traffic.

 

Who said that you were corrupt? I only said DMOZ organizational corruption and certainly for someone who has a brick and mortar business, you have a lot of time to defend "editor discretion" in a hyper business.