I have shown enough evidence of corruption for anyone with any kind of intelligence, if you still can not see it, it is hardly my fault. I am not insulting volunteers since unfortunately most real volunteers have very limited power to do anything about the situation in DMOZ and are merely there as window dressing while most senior editors are not really volunteers.
just follow the rules of DMOZ while submitting and then wait and watch.. nothing is in our hand after submission.
Once again, we are waiting for proof of this amazing insult. It is very easy to make wild assertions/allegations. Here is my challenge: I am one of those "senior editors" (not my term) that gworld (and others) accuse of receiving payment. I deeply resent that malicious accusation, and demand to see the evidence. My editing record is here for anyone to see, and if he has the contacts he claims, he can easily check the details. So come on gworld and others, what is your proof that I am self-interested, abusive, and untrustworthy?
The proof is in the number of completed transactions in different free lance sites and crappy sites that are listed since only senior editors can list a site in any category that they want which is a requirement for completing those transactions. Your so called link to your editing record which shows nothing but your blind ambition and sense of self importance is completely useless but on the other hand, your desire to be blind to all signs of corruption and ignoring the obvious and defending the current situation in ODP in order to serve your ambitions talks volumes about your character.
Be honest. Submit your site and move on to submit to other directories. Check for a listing in a few months. Email the editor of that page and if none exists keep going backwards in the category til you find one to chat with.
As I pointed out in one of the several other threads where you posted this advice today, this is definitely not recommended. To repeat (just once), my reply to one of your other posts:
No such thing as a fool proof method because any site can suck, and if it does there will be nothing you can do to get into it. The only way to get in is to create a quality site that people will want to go to.
Yes! Well said! Webmasters should concentrate on their own sites and making them the best they can, rather than endlessly fretting and complaining about the activities of a bunch of volunteers with a strange hobby.
As far as I know there is no "fool proof" method to get into Dmoz. They are famous for having all kinds of problems, and never responding to inquiries, in addition to being difficult to getting acceptance.
I made a mistake by submitting my network to DMOZ when i should work hard and let them notice me If you wana get listed in DMOZ then move on do something unique, be popular and you'll get listed in a second otherwise you'll have to wait for a few years to see if you get listed !
Once again, this indicates the usual misunderstanding about DMOZ, which is not a listing service. Editors find sites in all sorts of places, and reviewing the suggestions made by other people is neither a requirement nor a priority. And there is absolutely no need for volunteers to waste their own time responding to endless "inquiries" from webmasters who could easily find all the relevant information for themselves. As for it being difficult to "get accepted", the concept is meaningless because by suggesting a site you are doing nothing more than making it possible for an editor to find it if they feel like looking at the pool of suggestions, but editors know from long experience that they are far more likely to find worthwhile sites in other places. I have added more than 25000 sites to the directory, but only a few hundred of those were suggested by other people. The owners of the 24,000 other sites didn't have to do anything at all to be listed, apart from making a worthwhile site. You can't get easier than that.
That's right. I have entered my site once every month, but until now also not yet listed in DMOZ. Although I have followed all the instructions from DMOZ. Better things to do other than just waiting for a DMOZ's approval.
You say that you have followed the instructions from dmoz, yet you state that you have "entered" your site once a month The guidelines clearly tell you to submit ONCE and once only. Multiple submissions create more work for the volunteer editors and is an excellent example of how webmasters create delays, by causing so much unnecessary work for the editors. And people wonder why we are reluctant to look through the suggestion pools?
You obviously did not read the instructions you claim to follow; once a month make you close to being a serial spammer. How do you think any directory (not just DMOZ) should treat those who can't follow the guidelines that acknowledge they have read and abide by?
You are correct, and gworld is not once again... A completed transaction with positive feedback is in no way shape or form the slightest piece of evidence. Paid listings DO run the risk of being a trap to get your site banned and I'd not suggest doing them... though there is some evidence that such things can and do happen, but you'll likely not find an editor willing to admit it (as seen above). The only true way to get a site listed in a fool proof manner is to buddy up to staff and have your site automatically listed, much like Skrenta did for his 10K ++ topix listings. Yeah, yeah, an editor can remove any of the links at any time... but with 10k listings still remaining would it matter?
Nobody is denying that such things can happen. Unfortunately there will sometimes be corrupt editors and plenty of stupid webmasters who ignore all the warnings about the consequences. My point is that even if the "transaction" is not completed, the editor promptly loses their account, and all the webmaster's sites are very likely to be removed and permanently banned from the directory. In other words, simply offering a bribe can lead to a permanent ban. Surely not worth it?
Oh ok, thanks snooks, I thought dmoz permit to enter the URL more than one if I have submited it more than a month. Thank you for the useful information. In fact I have not read more detail.
I posted this question here about a crash in dec 2007 that might have lost some submit site requests, still waiting an answer, but I think the gist is that I should submit again.
It was December 2006, not 2007. As I have already replied to your RZ post, However, I can see that the above condition does not apply to you, so there is absolutely no need to waste volunteer's time with any more suggestions. Thanks. Perhaps you keep skipping over the section of the form which warns that excessively repeated submissions can lead to a permanent ban?