DMOZ is dead or is it? Please post if you got approved lately!

So this time to avoid answering the question and coming up with the goods you choose to attack me. Stop avoiding the question, by attacking the questioners.

Wouldn't it just be easier to:

Either
1. Answer the question we all want to know the answer to. ie back up your claim with the links to the crappy sites you claim are owned and listed by senior editors
2. Admit you lied and made the claims up.

 

Does this mean as blind as Dilbert?
In any case, anyone (even those using reading aids) could look through all your posts without finding a single URL to back up your repeated claims about the abusive listing of their own sites by loads of "senior editors".
You have to admit, gworld, your "credibility" is looking pretty shaky about now.
C'mon, give us even 5 sites from that long long list you claim to have.

Or how about 3, just to keep us quiet?

Two?

 

one ??????????

 

Really? I let members look at your posting history in this forum and then decide who lies and if you are really a DMOZ editor or not?

some Examples from my previous posts:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5260364&postcount=13

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4179057&postcount=55

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=1499508&highlight=phone#post1499508

 

Its easy to see you have not been truthful. Its easy to see you made the claims up. Its easy to see that you can not provide links to crappy sites owned by senior editors. None of those links provide an answer to the question. Not one of those links say anything about those sites being owned by senior editors. Anyone can see that and judge for themselves. Thanks for ruining your own credibility. Everything you say from now on is tainted by your own brush.

As you seem to have trouble getting things, I am going to type this next bit really really really slow for your benefit:
I a m n o t a D M O Z e d i t o r

Actually, even if I was DMOZ editor, what has that got to do with you not being able to provide evidence to answer the question. Are you just trying to divert attention from your own failure to come up with the goods.

 

gworld is just being lazy.

One of his finds from FOUR YEARS AGO

Four years.

I sort of thought it was a joke? A running gag, that it could not be that bad. Obviously out of 70-80 thousand editors you will get bad apples.

This is the face many people see of DMoZ. It's certainly the face I see when a scam like this persists for four years after it has been reported.

 

Just as a guess, 98% of the editors have nothing to do with that area of the Directory and most would like to see it gone, I suspect.

There have been bad apples over the years, a lot of them have posted here.

The more important point is, they get caught and booted, but it is an internal matter that's dealt with internally, and has nothing to do with whether a site gets reviewed and is either found to be a good resource for a category and included, or found to be lacking and deleted.

It's a red herring meant either to try to intimidate editors into listing a site, or punishing them for not listing it by casting aspersions of corruption and favoritism.

In either case, it really doesn't work, so I'm surprised that it continues. Pointless accusations and even trying to defend them accomplish nothing.

The Directory provides a way to report suspected abuse and appreciates it. So report it, it will be looked into and answered. After that, it's none of your business, you have no further rights, it's the Directory's business.

That's my own personal view of it as an editor. It certainly doesn't affect my own editing.

 

my experience dmoz is an outdated resource. lot of sites in the index are dead or 404 or the pages have changed or the domain expired and is now a parked page or spammy.

DMoz editors are a mix between good and really corrupt, with a leaning towards the latter. There have been numerous allegations of editors/moderators extorting money or favors in exchange for continued listing, and many of the sections of the directory go without editors for no apparent reason. All in all Dmoz was a good way for search engines to start with but it's since become useless and I don't think it really carries any weight asides as a link directory - of which there are many in DP that I would value as being more worthwhile of your time and money.

Conclusion: DMoz is good if you get your link there, but don't pay money to have it added as it's not worth it. If you can't get your link on there don't worry because it's not a big loss and it won't guarantee any serp positions despite what some might claim.

 

Well, a listing in DMoZ is roughly equivalent to a small link campaign in a respected forum or blog. People certainly overshadow its importance, but in my own niche, a single forum sig link was treated as being roughly equivalent to a listing in DMoZ with only two competitors. Add a handful of other links and I secured the #1 spots in Google and Live with ease. Yahoo came a bit later.

So no, DMoZ is not particularly important. At best, it's a bit of a head start.

 

Actually, those sites are removed from the Directory by automated QC tools, and placed back into the unreviewed, until an editor can investigate each one.

Yes, and oddly enough, those unproven allegations are overwhelmingly from the SEO community, but those are not the people we strive to serve, so that's not really surprising.

When editors do choose to look at submitted sites to build a category, we have no idea whether the submitter is an SEO or someone who built a site for their business/organization, and it doesn't matter. The unique content on the site (or lack of) is all we're interested in. Each site suggestion from the public is equal to any other site suggestion. Which is probably a sore point with SEOs, they want to be treated "special".

If what you're saying is true, then SEO's should be tickled to death, instead of complaining, which leads me to believe that the allegations are more wishful thinking than truth.

 

Really? So phonemistress who owns those sites is not an editor and Jezebel was not a meta. Please lie a little bit more, like you are not an editor and may be we will believe you.

Don't be so shy and post your editor name, is it Erik.......?

But it is still part of ODP with rampant corruption, isn't?

Really? Since the SEO community are the only people who are ready to pay senior editors fees, I thought those will be the only people who actually DMOZ editors serve.

 

Hooray!
After an awful lot of prodding you finally manage to produce a solitary example to back up your claim that lots of senior editors have listed their own sites abusively. But how disappointing that it is the same pathetic example you have whined about for years.

So in fact you don't have any evidence at all about all the other senior editors that you have maliciously accused of corruption then? Instead, you have nurtured your tired old bitterness about a single incident until it grew into a complete fabrication in which you have now been caught out.

It's a good thing nobody else makes these wildly fanciful statements about DMOZ corruption without having any evidence, or they might end up with just as much egg on their faces.

OK, now that gworld has had to own up, who's next?

 

I didn't even try to give an example because I know you are blind by design but even when another user give an example, it still doesn't count and there is no corruption.

You have to be blind and ignore all the facts, after all how can you bite the hand that butter your bread.

 

I have try to post my new URL to DMOZ
but can't find the add url button.

I don;t know if everyone, still can post into DMOZ the most hardest directory to enter

 

The highest categories don't accept submissions because very few sites are placed there. Try a lower category and you should find it.

 

My site was listed several months ago. I asked the editor if my site was correct for the category and unique enough for listing.

When in doubt as the editor what will make your site more unique & interesting.

 

As with another recommendation from InsightReiki, I'm afraid this is very poor advice, for the reasons I gave in the adjacent thread.
Besides, surely you know best what your visitors would find interesting in your site. Why on earth would you rely on the advice of a volunteer completely unknown to you, and who very likely has completely different interests?

 

just a question to those who are DMoz editors, what exactly is the criteria for picking new editors. It seems really random and based on community participation or something, I don't quite get how they assign the editor spots. But it's no real sweat off my back because a listing in DMoz doesn't guarantee anything in the serps.

 

My personal experience was to follow the instructions, to be totally honest, and to apply for a small category.

The category was my home town and it had 4 listings in it and no submitted sites from the public waiting. I found another 120 sites on my own, and built the category up by adding the correct sub categories, @links, and relcats.

From there, I applied for other localities in my area, until I finally ended up editing everything within the U.S.

Each editor starts with a small category, even metas, and has to apply for new editing permissions, just as you would apply to become an editor to start with.

We aren't assigned categories, we request them because we have some kind of interest in them. All editors go through this process, and all editors are denied editing permissions in categories they request, at one time or another. It isn't personal, it's based on an editors experience, knowledge of editing, and how well they take care of the categories they already have.

We get detailed advice from the meta who turns us down in what we should improve on. Sometimes it's something as simple as a category being a little too large for the expeience we have, other times it's because we aren't following the editing guidelines in the category we already have.

Metas have a responsibility to the editing community as a whole, and to the public who uses our data, to use their best judgement in selecting new editors or granting current editors new editing permissions. One whacko could cause a lot of damage and the rest of us would have to clean up the mess.

They take the responsibility seriously, and the editing community depends on that. They are editors who have earned the highest trust by working their way up through the ranks doing enormous amounts of work, showing great leadership abilities, and a very good understanding of editing across the whole Directory. Every part of the Directory has its own unique quirks to deal with, and metas understand what those are, so they can advise the rest of us about things we may want to try and why it would or would not work.

 

A good place to start is to read "Becoming an Editor". There is also plenty of advice in Resource Zone, and blogs such as my own and others by fellow meta-editors.
Having personally reviewed almost 11,000 editor applications, I can confidently say that by far the two most important aspects of a successful application are
1. Reading and completing the forum carefully.
2. Honesty.

That's it. There's nothing tricky or random about it. If you fulfill those criteria you will have a far better chance than most applicants.
And to all unsuccessful applicants, we send helpful feedback, often with personal comments, to help them prepare a more acceptable application the next time.