It's inevitable that somebody is going to be corrupted with thousands of editors of different ages, nationalities, beliefs and incomes. Some editors would probably even apply just so they can do such things and eventually they will lose their editing rights as DMOZ has a system in place for reporting abuse of the system among other things ways. Although the majority are not like this, most are very dedicated and loyal to DMOZ they wouldn't do such a thing. I receive many message from people wanting me to add their site to the directory. I don't accept their money, nor do I want to. Instead I offer them advice to help them get their site approved the legitimate way.
If true, I applaud your integrity. The trouble is there are other editors (assuming the banned squirrel actually is one) for whom the submission queue appears to be a pesky nuisance. How then, does one submit or do anything to get their site approved if the submissions queues are not being reviewed?
If there's a risk of even a small amount of editors being corrupt than that cancels out anybody who isn't.
LOL. Well, Shoemoney is a helluva showman, but I don't think it was a coincidence he was in a contest to get the most blog traffic about that time. Giving credit where due... he pulled off a helluva gambit. Kudos to him for being a better judge of AOL staff's commitment than a lot of us that were inside at the time. Their wimpy response left the editors swinging in the breeze. I vaguely recall someone mentioning this would be thrown in editors faces in perpetuity. Anyway the story had some rather large holes but it's all been said before. Bottom line it isnt shocking new information... it's been discussed here ad nauseum.
I believe the only people who should be editors are actual paid employees that have something to lose if they try to bride or extort somebody for money.
So as the DIGG (as you pointed out DIGG comparing to DMOZ) I am not backing anyones comment. I just want to highlight that every system has its good and bad. No system is perfect. As long as necessary steps taken to improve things then it is good and run for long.
I never compared Dmoz to Digg. I just suggested that maybe they should have a system where the visitors to Dmoz choose who appears in the directory. Not that they come up with an "exact" system like Digg. Most of the articles that appear at the front page of Digg are worth reading which shows that their system works.
I just left all the hopes to get listed in DMOZ. It was more than 4-5 months, when I submitted on DMOZ. DMOZ is just a game of Editors and nothing. If a Editor want to add any site on DMOZ, no one can oppose them and if they want, they can ignore any site, no matter how the site is written. I don't know what you buddies think about it. But I think DMOZ is just ignoring the Webmaster related site. For me, the value of DMOZ is ZERO. I just giving interested on it due to only Google. If Google were not ask to webmasters to submit sites to DMOZ, I think, DMOZ would be only the place of DISCO.
i tried to become one but they did not accept me. Also as i saw it it's useless to know who they are because they will not help you with your site, most of the follow the rules. Lastly, yes, it's voluntary as it is a nonprofit organization as i know it.
I run a usefull, completely legit website, usahotads.com, with over 10,000.+ indexed pages and growing every day, and have applied to DMOZ several time and still no listing? Any sugestions to what we are doing wrong? Thanks in advance!!
hmm it seems that the website is down :S. Tell me to give you some quick tips after you've fixed that
I have submitted my three year old website to DMOZ twice now and had no joy. The category I am trying to submit to has six other listings in it - all of which are very poor in terms of both content and html page design. I am seriously in shock that mine is ignored and yet these poor quality, never updated, lower pagerank, younger websites are listed. I'd appreciate anyone's advice on how to improve my chances of getting listed (I've done all the usual things W3 validation, no dead links, appropriate resolution.) My site has unique, regularly updated and new content and ranks #1-3 on Google for over twenty of my desired search terms - so at least Google thinks I'm doing something right! (In comparrison two of the six listed sites in the DMOZ category often appear on page one, the other four are nowhere.) I'm beginning to think that the webmaster of the other sites in the category has had some influence on their being listed but I have no idea on where to start questioning this? Again, thoughts/suggestions are welcome!