DMOZ listing price list

LOL. The way that neb and anon blaming me for every web site with evidence of DMOZ corruption, soon they will claim I own Google too and I just made the company to hurt DMOZ editors "good" reputation.

 

Holy shucks,

Now that I look at this thing more closely, it looks to be real.

I didn't pay much attention to it when u first posted it.

I mean people or Editors are actually bidding and assuring clients that they will list their site into dmoz or you don't have to pay them anything.

Heheheh.

Jimnoble told me something like 'seems u need a paid directory which reviews listings on a timely basis', when I really did want to list my sites there.

 

Of course it is real. You didn't believe DMOZ editors nonsense that I own scriptlance and I have just made that site to hurt their "good" reputation, did you?

 

You are dribbling again Julian, this is up there with your "Jim" delusions. No one said that you own anything but porn, escort directories and discount pharmacy type sites.

 

Is this an admission that listings in scriptlance are real and DMOZ editors sell listings to anyone who wants to buy? Have you given up on denying the facts?

Why don't you ask orlady about jim like I told you to do?

Latest bids on DMOZ listings:

 

Hang on Julian you are going off on a tangent again. You keep coming up with these bizarre statements and then when pressed for an explanations you sort of flake off into the distance.

Other than your imagination where were did someone say you own scriptlance?
Who is Jim? And no I am not going to ask Orlady to explain your fantasies.
Did you dream that admins may not have commercial websites or was it something in the real world.
How can a big shot editall (like you say you are) be so ignorant of the ODP?

You know Julian, and it really hurts me to say this knowing what a useful guy you are, but I am beginning to think that in addition to being a coward that you are also a big fat liar.

By the way Julian, I have never said those listings in scriptlance are not real. They are clearly listing from people wanting to get their sites listed What I am dubious of is to what extent they actually lead to a listing by payment to an editor. I would be interested in evidence that we can act on rather than Julian dribble however.

 

Look at the review section when customers confirm that the bidder listed their site and also look at the bid when the bidder states that he/she doesn't want any payment until it is listed. Do you think people who are not editor, go there and put such bids because it is fun and they like to waste their own time?

 

I refuse to buy a link in any link farm that can't rank first for its own domain name, lol.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=487451

 

Don't worry, they are working on it, they have opened a blog.

neb already admitted that the "senior" editors in ODP are webmasters, you know, the same dirty animals that they excuse everyone else of being, so they have to fix the situation or their precious links will become worthless.

 

LOL.

As predicted DMOZ "senior" editors got worried about posts claiming DMOZ death and had to post denial in their blog that DMOZ is alive and still in search engines and therefore people should still buy their "SEO" work.

It is funny that while claiming that they don't care about "SEO" and Google results, they have to issue formal denial about Google penalizing DMOZ and it is complete with screen shot from Google. At least it is nice that finally they are admitting that DMOZ has become a link farm.

 

Just for the record, Mr Corrupt, that was written by an AOL member of staff.

I did tell you AOL were starting to change ODP and this is but the first step. But you eill have to wait and see where the next ones are. Frustrating, I know, but there you probably get used to frustration with the links on your site.

 

Is it suppose to be impresive that is written by AOL member of staff?

What have they changed? Opened a lousy blog and tried to convince everyone that DMOZ links has still value so webmasters should buy it.

Did you notice that the images in that blog are missing and not shown? It is typical of AOL competence.

 

Gworld even Matt Cutts from Google took the time to mention Dmoz was not penalized at Sphinn and on his blog with a explanation why at first the googlebot didn't crawl the page. See (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/my-favorite-pedometer-omron-hj-720itc/#comment-113434 ) and he's doesn't have anything to gain from doing so.

It is more of a matter that people was curious, and someone with the time gave the explanation on what was going on.

 

Matt Cutts works for Google and if people asked him or if he felt the need to explain Google actions that is his choice.

On the other hand, DMOZ suppose to be for "end users" and not "webmasters" and DMOZ "editors" shouldn't care about Google and SERP, so it is kind of funny when DMOZ has to come out and explain for webmasters that don't abandon us, our links still worth something. ODP links farm is not dead, our "senior" editors can still help with your "SEO" by selling links.

I am not surprised by this since couple of posts ago, the great defender of DMOZ, neb finally admitted that even admins in DMOZ are actually webmasters, despite all the name calling and accusations from their side toward the webmasters.

 

An AOL staff member that just happened to have a heavy hand in the writing of the guidelines? The same staff member that allows Skrenta to remain there? And I'm sure the same AOL staff member that has checked into the listing prices for AOL's FREE directory?

I think if they are going to try to maintain that philosophy then they need to add a few things to their changes...like rel="nofollow" to their links. Something that would turn the webmaster off.

I am an admin, but I don't really consider myself a webmaster. It's not the webmaster they dislike, it's the submitter that does anything but "submit and forget".

 

Back to the innuendo, how sad to see you keeping up this image. Care to offer any proof in your allegations?

Strange how ex-editors and web masters who cannot get their sites listed always use the tack, ODP is corrupt or ODP don't like webmasters in one form or another.

Perhaps it would have helped in your short career as ODP editor if you had realised that ODP is a group of people who collect sites in groups and categories. They are not there to SERVE the webmasters but the end user. Does that mean they don't like webmasters? Of course notl. Many directories exist basically for the webmaster, who pays for the services of that directory and who wants to contact their end users in that style. ODP is designed from the other end, we seek to SERVE the end user and therefore say that we are not interested in offering lookups, or if a webmaster can get a site listed.

We do not claim to be perfect, we don't have every good website listed, we do list some bad sites or the sites change to be bad, there are, very sadly, some corrupt editors (we have removed such so there must be), we do not review every site that is offered in a short period of time, we do not claim to do so. If a webmaster pays for an entry to other directories it is reasonable that the site is reviewed and listed quickly, but using, mostly, voluntary editors we produce the best directory we can and as it happens it is still the largest human edited directory and the only one that Google downloads and uses for its own directory, that says that we do a pretty good job in my book and I am proud to be part of the ODP team. (And please don't start that old chestnut about editor names, I have given you chapter and verse many times about names that get bandied around on the net, just check the shooie scandal and lies linked with a particular ODP editor who did the red noting).

 

Do I need to once again point out that there are over 10 Topix listings, or that anything that Skrenta has ever touched has 5+ listings? I could sit here and slap proof of the founding of DMOZ all day long, and you'd just call it innuendo.

There is also the semi-proof of the ScriptLance listing offers...yeah, yeah those could be just a bunch of ex-editors, but then...it COULD be actual editors as well. The argument goes both ways...but has it been investigated?

Proof sure is a funny concept *boggle*

Good thing I'm not one of those people...

I've actually got several sites listed, and I only listed one myself. I do not use the silly notion that ODP editors do not like Ed-eds or webmasters unable to get crappy sites listed. I simply read Editor posts here on DP, or over at the official RZ...yeah, yeah, some editors are nice, but are you one of them? Nebby certainly is not.

Though, honestly, I like you...at least I know you can be good and helpful here, unlike neb who only trolls.

How many times must I say that I am also an end user?

You keep talking about the grand changes that are to come...but if the webmaster and submitter are going to remain ignored, I'm afraid that it'll not help all that much.

And currently, to the end user, it does seem that webmasters can buy links. The proof is at ScriptLance. There is no proof otherwise accept from a few editors posting here at DigitalPoint posting Anonymously...

 

I was rather referring to this statement of yours

An AOL staff member that just happened to have a heavy hand in the writing of the guidelines? The same staff member that allows Skrenta to remain there? And I'm sure the same AOL staff member that has checked into the listing prices for AOL's FREE directory?

Implying that the staff member who writes has some connection to the comments you make. I ask again would you care to prove that innuendo?

Have you noticed on DP how when someone shows a problem site it disappears faster than lightening, just believe the same about any evidence however small about corrupt editors, and that they would be removed as fast.

I think that there will be changes with regard webmasters, but personally I don't think ODP has to make them. If we are not charging webmasters we don't have to relate to them at all. If their links are good they can be included if not then they are likely not to be. We only gather links and index them, provided they have unique content and if you want sites that break the rules I can find, probably, more than you. Some sites have been listed for years and editors often say if the site had come up now it would not have got in. If it were stamps we collected would we have to explain every stamp we did not want in our collection? If we collected albums of musicians, would we have to explain why we did not have a particular singer? Or are collectors allowed to collect what the collectors want to collect?

 

"senior" editors sites removal process:

• 1) Some one complains about a site that belongs to "senior" editor A
• 2) "Senior" editor B jumps in and give some stupid explanation about why it was listed and removes the site
• 3) A new domain with the same shitty content gets listed in DMOZ.

 

This must be why I got removed after requesting editing rights in totally outdated category offering to list over 200 missing websites...

Yep, editors who reveal there identity at DP risk removal especially if metas are bored.

Considering how many metas and editalls are lurking on this and other forums it would be amazing if it didn't it seems they waste more time lurking on disgusting SEO forums then editing at DMOZ.