Lets gather all the advices on how to get a website listed in DMOZ!

LOL. I didnt stop in to train you, just to warn the OP.

 

I'm not asking you to train me, I'm asking you to back up your statements.

You're wrong - if not show me the proof.

No need to warn the OP, they can't trace him and even if they could they will only blacklist him - but he was never listed in the first place so he has lost nothing but an hour or so of his time.

 

And the site will be blackballed too, never to be listed however good the content. Is it worth risking that if you want to get in. Better to be honest and that way you do not risk anything. DMOZ do not have problems with people who are web masters and use their own sites to apply, they do have problems with liars. And if you can show the proof of anything else please do so in the same way you keep asking Rob, who if you are an editor you will know is not an editor, for proof.

Does that claim to be an editor have the same moral integrity of telling people to lie on their application forms. Because I personally doubt the claim.

 

Ok, lets start discussing the major restrictions DMOZ applies for a website! DMOZ rejects mirror websites - the first one! What other ones?

 

Had you thought of looking at our publicly available Site Selection Criteria? They are pretty definitive and authoritative I'd have thought .

 

Sure, why not? The site will likely never be listed anyway - and like I said getting it listed is a complete waste of time no matter how it's done so who cares?

It's just something to do if you're bored just to show it can be done.

Nothing to risk and many or most editors do have a problem with webmasters whether they admit it or not.

Yes, I'm going around claiming to be a dmoz editor because that makes me soooo cool and powerful.

Go ahead attack my integrity and my editing status in an attempt to avoid the real issue. Lame!

If you lie on your application dmoz will never know.

 

Hey Jim? Did the EOC make y'all implement a hire-the-ethically-handicapped program or something?

 

Don't you have special tools and secret ways of knowing everything?

You shouldn't doubt the claim, you should know without a doubt whether I am an editor or not - and all the websites that I am associated with - and how many times they are listed throughout dmoz.

 

Oh, so that's why all the editors are "ethically-handicapped."

Do you people even read these posts? I just got done saying this.

 

One cannot attack a non-existent object.

While instructing someone to falsify information it's disingenuous to hit the fainting couch because somebody mentions the lack of integrity evidenced by same.

 

Fine, go ahead and attack my lack of integrity and my editing status in an attempt to avoid the real issue. Lame!

If you lie on your application dmoz will never know.

My point was that you can get your site into dmoz, you will have to lie, and that you can get away with it.

Yes, it is lying, yes lying is usually wrong, yes it is a waste of time, but yes it can be done.

Now, you get your panties in a bunch and say something like "winifred is a slutty liar" in an attepmt to distract people from the truth.

Somebody please lock this thread soon, I need to get some work done!

 

You don't even have to lie, if you edit in language which no metas understand you can do just about anything, nobody checks does edits ever (they just remove editor without proof)!

And if you are active in some English category where you do everything really nice and keep yourself absolutely quiet (i.e. don't talk at forums especially DP, even in internal you should only stick to asking technical questions) nobody will pay any attention to you and your free to do anything you want in non-English categories!

 

Yet many have had their site added without lying, many become editors without lying, and many liars have been disqualified from editor status. You're view is cynical and misguided. The fact that there's a dmoz ed with such a low opinion of dmoz is unfortunate.

When you drink water it's worth remembering the folks that dug the well. We arent like you, and I dont think you represent the majority of those there now either. I doubt you'll last there.

 

Sure, of course - that still doesn't change the fact that my earlier comments are correct.

Quit being so serious and cranky just admit that I'm right.

Besides if you love dmoz so much why don't you work towards fixing these problems instead of attacking people who point them out and insisting that they don't exist.

 

I got 3 of my websites listed using my real name . In one of the websites it's clearly mentioned that it's maintained by me in the front page. So I don't think there is any need to lie about ownership.

 

Do you think that helped? like for a website to show the name of the owner, I was thinking about this the other day

 

You can say that but I could not possibly do so, I would get banned.

Can I just remind you again that Rob is no longer an editor and the more you comment the less you seem to be too.

 

I am just wondering what factors do DMOZ editors usually pay attention to when taking a decision to accept or don't accept a website in DMOZ!

 

They are al here http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

 

See post25 .