How to get listed in DMOZ, the easy way. 2 days.

Gworld that is REALLY naughty... but I think I'd notice if this happened in one of my categories, y'know, a terribly basic concept but... like when I click to check a site ?? This 'easy street' route wouldn't work in an awful lot of cats in Dmoz, I have to say and is at best, a temporary (percieved) boost in those categories that are a bit more spammy in nature.

But Gworld , personally I am shocked ! How do you do both editing AND scamming the whole system. Yet still try to make out that you are morally correct and only 'upholding decent standards' ?? Because really luv, what you're doing is just so, well, two-faced and unashamedly self interested ?

And I thought you only wanted to make Dmoz a better place, weed out the bad sites, the underage porn, change unfair policies and overall make Dmoz the type of place even you would be proud of.

Only, you're only TOO happy to go back on all that aren't you ? And make yourself one of the people you claim to so despise.
In essence : A Dmoz editor only out for themselves, their own sites and serps. No wonder you know so much about corruption. Looks like you practice it personally and are only too happy to pass on the 'knowledge' to others. You have no real interest in editing really, you're just out for what you can get... Never ever tar me with the same brush, lump me in with editors who join 'only list their own site', or say I don't 'matter' as a newbie editor ever again to me.

At least I care about what I'm doing there. You cannot possibly.

You, like others here, in other threads the last few weeks, disappoint me greatly in your double standards.
Gworld you ARE the very thing you profess to dislike most with the directory...
A self-interested editor with no standards whatsoever, and who doesn't care about the 'ideal' as long as they have as many of their own sites listed as possible by any means.... Isn't that kind of person that you keep telling those who post here that we must get rid of, and that Dmoz is completely crap because of them and their self-interest ?

I'm speechless ! Carry on, don't mind me... I just edit there..

 

The date of original thread is Apr. 21st 2005. The editor that thread was aimed at was removed as editor about 1 month ago. Other than that:

 

That is the second time this week you've posted about being disappointed, shygirl.

This may come as a huge shock to you but I don't think most people on this forum are wasting any time at all worrying whether or not you're going to be disappointed before hitting that "Post" button. Speaking for myself, I can honestly say that impressing you one way or another isn't even on my top 10 list.

 

Makes no odds now as expired domains are a thing of the past. If google notice a change in ownership they check the content, if the content has changed as well as ownership, the domain is zeroed. IE it is classed as a new domain again.

 

Whoa! I have been back ordering domain names recently. So, you are saying that if I retain the same content, I am fine, right? (I will naturally take care of the copyright issues )

 

And ? Either you have changed your stance in which case I apologise, OR you still think it's a fun thing to do to insert iframes and laugh at scamming and causing volunteers more work blah blah ?

Which is it Gworld, have you done a complete about turn in a year, or, not ?

Minstrel, love you loads hun.. and the fact that you 'say' you are completely unmoved and disinterested in anything I have to post is absolutely NO shock to me believe me.
Though, to be honest, psychologically, (I've studied too in-depth)... it looks like you have by the looks of it been kind of keeping 'note' of my posts ? Enough to quote absolutely and exactly how many times I've said the word 'disappointed' the last few weeks ??? I personally wouldn't waste energy on someone I didn't give a toss about.
You have with me though, AND, weirdly have evidentally kept notes on my exact words within them. I AM flattered luv. But there was really no need to bother, I wasn't asking you personally for any opinions at all this particular thread. I was asking a fellow editor for his.
Oh and ...

Yes, I guess you'd like to kid yourself on that I suppose. But, it was you (not me) who was compelled to seek some sort of attention and 'provoke a reaction' somehow here ? It's classic 'attention seeker' behaviour Minstrel. Even you must agree ( and please DON'T make me quote from basic and eminent psychology experts ).. This forum is probably the only place you have to let of some real steam every day 'off duty'. That's ok.

Anyway, back ON topic.

Gworld it was YOU I was asking ( not Minstrel, sorry sweetie, next time eh ?). The post is a year old and I admit I did know that when I posted last night. Since it was the actual thread that lead me here to DP for the first time, when I was researching basics like mirrors, doorway pages scams to look out for as a brand new editor. I was a bit clueless and I read loads here before joining. This thread was one of them.

I saw the post back at the top and decided to see if were still openly admitting to being a 'self-interested and possibly corrupt editor', everything since I've been posting here... that you say you are NOT and despise within it.

Which is it ??? Do you still condone this sort of thing or have you changed your mind. I really, really hope so, you seemed so sincere to me in what you've wanted to do the last few months.

ps Clueless about the pic ? Is it something to do with the Da Vinci Code ?

pps. Minstrel, if you post in reply to this, again I have to re-iterate, I wasn't actually asking YOU anything dear. I will of course understand that you will more than likely feel the need to reply anyway, anything I suppose for a bit more attention from me ;-).. you're a man and not made of wood after all ( whey hey !!!)...but pre-emptively, lets move on to the topic in question shall we ?

Is Gworld corrupt or not ? Thats all I want to know really,

 

I think you're losing it, shygirl. Can you please show me where you think I "quote[d] absolutely and exactly how many times I've said the word 'disappointed' the last few weeks"?

Again, huh? I don't need to "keep notes" to quote one of your posts - that's a basic feature of forum software.

In deference to your obvious "sensitivities", I won't bother to address the remainder of the pop psychology in your post, other than to note that the post is absurd and rather pathetic.

 

Shygirl & Mistrel sitting in a tree

 

Gworld's patriotic avatar is the coat of arms of Canada. I believe he told us somewhere that he lives in Vancouver except in winter.

 

DMOZ listings should not be used as gaining marketing advantage or as prize to keep people quite.

Not listing in DMOZ should not be used as keeping out competition or punishing those who criticize.

As long as both events are possible, people should have a possibility to fight it, so they don't need to chose between being silenced or punished. Like everything else in DMOZ, correct procedures will remove the need for such measures.

You tell me, what do you think it is. May be some of other editors posting here can clarify it for you.

 

Gworld, I like the picture. Who's the artist?

 

Agreed.

At ODP/DMOZ we try not to accept people as editors who will abuse the directory, but we are not psychic, and when in doubt we treat people as innocent until proven guilty.

Furthermore, when abusive editing is discovered, we try to eradicate it and prevent the abusive editor from repeating the offense. However, we cannot possibly notice every instance of abuse when it happens. Therefore, we have a procedure in place that allows all directory users to report problems in the directory, whether the problems are caused by abusive editors, spammers, or plain old "link rot." All abuse reports submitted to http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ are accessible to staff and all meta or admin editors, and they are permanently archived, so there are checks and balances on their handling.

DMOZ editor accounts are not removed merely for "criticizing" DMOZ. When editing privileges are removed from an editor who has criticized the project, you can be sure that the editor's actions have gone beyond mere criticism to include other forms of directory abuse.

 

Oh that picture. It is called 'censor' was lifted from http://www.habanaelegante.com/Lengua/Lengua3.html I presume.

 

That is a correct picture for what happens when abusive editing is discovered. The metas, staff, or admins will take care of the situation and no one other than a meta, staff, or admin will ever hear about, see, or talk about what the actual situation is. That policy is in place to protect both innocent editors and the directory.

Or were you intending to mean something else with that adorable monkey picture?

 

Won't ask you how you found that picture, but there are some other fantastic sites that can be found at http://www.habanaelegante.com/
e.g. http://www.opushabana.cu/breviario.php

Thanks for the link.

 

Gworld and those interested in the serious stuff please scroll down a bit to ON topic questions.

But, Minstrel said :

Ooops..One post up from the above and in the same thread Minstrel. Doh ! Busted.

Minstrel said :

Blimey Minstrel ... You did EXACTLY what I said you would do a la 'attention seeking' !!! I just knew you wouldn't be able to resist me and post 'something' in there in response. I'm thrilled ! I knew you would despite the fact that I have discouraged you several times by mentioning that my posts here were not really relevant to you at all. ( see my previous quote below )

Positive or negative attention is all the same to those that seek it. But you just keep on wanting me desperately to respond don't you sweetie awwww, bless your little cotton socks. I'm so blushing and fluffing my hair up.

Well yes, for you I guess, it IS starting to look that way the way you keep 'jumping in there'. But we are all starting to see it now, so don't worry. Nothing wrong with a bit of harmless flirting and banter eh ???

I AM secretly hoping so I must say !!! And despite the nature of his posts to the contrary ( he pretends coyly that he's a tad annoyed with me lol ). We can all see transparently that his behaviour speaks volumes otherwise in that he cannot leave my posts alone, even when he's not even the teenisest tiny bit even slightly involved !!! (wink wink, nudge nudge).

But back ON topic.
I'm still a bit worried that Gworld has been involved in telling the world how to scam Dmoz, then paradoxically gets pissed off with editors and blames THEM soley ( huh ???) that so many editors 'may' be scamming Dmoz and how can we live with ourselves ??? That's just sooo weird ? And a bit hypocritical in the extreme I think personally.

No-one else can see that ?

Gworld, over to you ? Please explain what side of the fence you are this year ? Would be good for me otherwise I don't see why you keep going on about corrupt editors if you admitted joyfully last year that you scam Dmoz mercilessly yourself ?

Ps Ponder THIS pic, it's a conceptual, yet strangely contemporary representation of part of this post in a tormented emotional 'romeo and juliet' type context. ( editor and long standing critic ).

"Where do I begin to tell the story
Of how great a love can be
The sweet love story that is older than the sea
The simple truth about the love she brings to me..
Where do I start
With her first hello
She gave new meaning to this empty world of mine
They'll never be another love another time
She came into my life and made the living fine"

 

Gworld is interested in the destruction of DMOZ not its salvation The technique he suggests is commonly used by porn merchants to insert their sites into the main DMOZ directory. If you haven't removed one yet shygirl the time will come at some point. And who knows, the webmaster may have got the idea from gworld.

That is why any time anyone actually responds to his claims and tries to do something constructive about it he will knock it down - it would wreck his master plan if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

 

Do you mean porn merchants who are not Meta and other senior editors in DMOZ?

if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.

if DMOZ actually did resolve some of the problems it really does have.