Here you go again. You are talking only about the one that got cut thus implying that the rest has been lucky and got away unpunished. Why don’t you get your facts straight in the first place and then you can try to explain to us why you are attacking editors?
Naah... I don't have a dog in the fight, Dmoz eds are welcome to defend themselves. I simply indicated that there was every likelihood that the site could have gone thru the standard submission process and that it was entirely possible the editor that listed it never saw a DP thread in his life. I also helped you eliminate all but those on the editall+ list (or anyone editing the subject cat or above it on the tree)as potential candidates if there was foul play. When looking for abuse there are things to watch for that can help flag a problem. No... being listed in the right cat does NOT disprove that a deal was made... but if a check indicated that the listing would normally have been listed much lower on the tree it could be a red flag. As neither you nor I have access to their logs it's a impossible to make definitive statements whether there was wrongdoing. Somebody internally would have to check... and as I said, I've seen them do such checks and remove editors, so sure, it has been known to happen. Part of the joy of having thousands of editors I suppose. They cant post guards on every one. Then again... their directory, their problem to deal with. I'm not real worried about it, and I suspect if they find there's an issue they'll handle it.
I agree with caprichoso above. Keeping the approval process hidden and not giving a clue when a web site is approved makes all process kind of fishy. All this looks like an application for who's going to host the next Olympic games. It's easy to just put straight approval process: 1. Does your web site have page rank 4? 2. Are you listed on 1st page of Google or Yahoo or Bing for your category + area? 3. Have you been online for more than 4 years? If yes to all above => you are approved. If no to any one of the options above => see you next year.
Now, this sounds entirely different than what you've said before. If you were concerned about we missing the possibility of a honest listing. Don't worry, we already knew that. But using the same concept, I have to warn you: any given entry on DMOZ could be the result of a bribe, even if we don't have a post from the site owner offering money. Why did I pointed this particular URL? Because I found a post offering money for listing. Ok. In this case the site seems to be listed in the right category. Being that not higher than the level we think it should have. But in this particular case, the business is garage-door installing with 24-hour emergency service for Toronto. Given a city with more than five million inhabitants and the kind of service offered, I think it wouldn't be necessary to be higher in the category tree. But that's only a personal point of view. In the end, category tree position won't solve our questions about this suspicious listing, as you said before. That's the whole point about DMOZ: we never know...
I wouldn't go that far in automation. A site meeting these three requirements could bet a scam anyway. But I agree in the process being far more clear and providing more information about submission. DMOZ could keep its manual edition process and yet make a lot of information publicly available. Information that today is kept hidden from our sight.
It was just an example. I'm pretty sure that the guys at dmoz have more complicated criteria. I think that they are missing the point...keep things simple and clear for the end user = less maintenance and forum discussions. Just like google in the beginning. You have page rank criteria so there is not much thinking. But trying to have Wikipedia style of content submital/approval + a hidden page rank criteria makes things worse. I have all my respect for the editors but come on...we do not live in the dark ages so to wait for the pope to decide, especially after 6-8 months.
Please believe that the directory does not exist for webmasters to get sites listed, it is not a listing service, if you want that find another directory. DMOZ is a project for volunteer editors to indulge their interests and create categories which people can use if they want to see sites of unique content about a given subject. The process is clear, we have guidelines, but what you guys want is a process whereby if you have a page rank 3 site you can get it listed. There are plenty of other directories doing that go use them, DMOZ does not offer that service, is not designed to fulfil that function and would lose most if not all its editors if it trod that route. We have also said endlessly on here that sites are looked at when an editor wants to work on that category and use the suggestions offered. Change that and most editors will walk. It's what it is and how it works. Now if your problem is that DMOZ is Google's directory, then go complain at them, we have no intention of changing so that we can feed websites into Google and we have no control over who or how we are used provided that appropriate attribution is given or arrangements made to do things differently. I don't try and tell you which stamps to collect, what colour or how to mount them. Interesting that we do not see many comments asking for that sort of ability to be listed in Best of the Web, they even charge you and sometimes don't list you from what I can read, where is the fuss about that?
Why are you talking about Google directory and Best of the web? May be your post was for another thread. Here we are talking about how DMOZ directory's obscure process and guidelines provides an easy path for corrupt editors to get their own way. And at the same time, it makes impossible to get listed by honestly submitting a site. The same obscure process takes place in editor rejection. Where a rejected applicant will get an email with a list of general reasons for rejection and a note saying: "Zero, one or more of this may be reason for your rejection" BOTW as well as Yahoo directory charge you for reviewing your site within a certain period of time. They are very clear about that when you are about to pay. If you pay know your site will be reviewed and you will get a feedback about your submission. Paying won't assure you a listing in the directory. And not being listed won't get your money back. This system has two major advantages: High listability rate in paid submission. Serious feedback for site owner Nobody is going to submit his site for money if not sure the site can be listed. Which makes reviewing process easier. Why don't you see so much fuss about serious directories is something you (editors and dmoz staff) should ask yourselves. All I can say is I don't reckon there is a world wide conspiracy against DMOZ. haha
As I said, you can pay and not get listed. But they set out to offer a service to webmasters, that's why you pay. We set out to list sites and create categories as volunteers working on their hobby for a surfer to be able to find grouped sites on particular subjects. Why would we want several directories working on the same model? Editors who are happy to work in a paid for directory do so in BOTW, those who are not and want a hobby and to build the categories as they want work in DMOZ, though some editors do both and are happy to have a hobby in editing and work in the paid for directory. But if you want to collect only stamps that have been used and which you receive, why should someone who buys new stamps insist that you should change. Our path is this way, sorry that does not comply with what you would like, but it is what it is and it is like that because that is why we work in it. Change it greatly and the present editors who spend hours working in it are likely to leave, IMO. I certainly would be one of the first.
Here we go again. In case you need to read it once again: you can pay and not get listed. But let's go back to DMOZ editors listing sites for money, which is the original subject of this thread.
Which you totally failed in providing evidence to back up the claim - all you provided was speculation. Why do you continue to fail to back up what you say? Why don't you come up with the goods rather than keep displaying that chip you have on your shoulder?
In the first place you should read posts Anonymously made explaining why we can't be certain about what actually happened. You should read my posts too, so you will see there is no claims on them. Otherwise you will keep doing post like this, non-sense posts. In my last post I wrote "DMOZ editors listing sites for money" as a general topic. Not a particular claim. As for the speculations: may be, if DMOZ reveals information about that listing we will get out of them. But we all know that's not going to happen.
Well how about showing a specific url and a completed payment reciept, or some actual proof that a transaction took place. What you have done is simply repeated hearsay and offered no proof
Let's face the facts, no matter what you were shown, you would dispute it and not believe it You would say it was forgeed, or doctored.......that's just the type of character that you are. You were correct about one thing, as you certainly will not be shown anything, simply because it is none of your business
Dispute and disbelief is what editors teach us in the past be not facing corruption facts. We tend to not believe in DMOZ because of all the lies we already heard from you (dmoz editors). We won't be shown anything because there is something to hide.
Yet another suspicious listing. This time I used resource-zone as my source of information. We have read a lot of explanations about why a site is listed all across the directory, when guidelines make very clear that shouldn't be. Most probably we will here them again, but all we can do is trying: This site luckymojo.com is listed 43 times in very different DMOZ categories. Report: http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=luckymojo.com The site itself is a large amulets-store catalogue. Do you think this site it's worth breaking their own rules once again?
didn't told you Jim about '' link rot '' theory ? ? if not he will tell you with sure somewhere on the future ... anyway check always the records of whois of domains witch you are getting from dmoz and if you wanna see some funny things even check on wayback machine from archive.org Even if they are thinking smart and powerful when they can add and delete sites on dmoz they cant edit the cache from other independent sources