DMOZ listing suspicious site?

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by caprichoso, Sep 17, 2009.

  1. caprichoso

    caprichoso Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #61
    Well, I don't blame you. Current and former DMOZ editors tend to argue in circles. After a couple of iterations you get an already used argument. Which leads to contradiction and confusion. Which is what they want.

    This post is about proof of DMOZ corruption. Like other discussions where proof was given about DMOZ corruption, it was abandoned by DMOZ editors and sites reported are still there.
    Which in turns proves that corruption and self promotion is still consented.

    If a DMOZ editor adds a post here, in the future, it will be for saying "nothing was done because it wasn't reported via the abuse report form". Which is pathetic.
     
    caprichoso, Nov 17, 2009 IP
  2. Qryztufre

    Qryztufre Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,071
    Likes Received:
    491
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #62
    True true, and if they did that, then I'd likely be complaining about donald duck... at least my complaints are about something that is actually against the guidelines rather my edit count...which is seemingly something that you and Anonymously have issues with.


    And no, I do not know how to run a directory, but I can read the guidelines of directories that are in existence... and according to the guidelines of the ODP topix is should have never been listed. Yeah, yeah, it's a call made by AOL, does that make it fit the guidelines?

    Editor after editor has said they are free to remove the links, so, erm, your argument here is a bit more invalid then mine is it not? A site that does NOT conform to the guidelines that editors are allowed to remove. *ponders* Seems its in the hands of the editors and as they editors are supposed to follow the guidelines....

    DMOZ listing suspicious site? Topix FITS that bill... sorry.
     
    Qryztufre, Nov 17, 2009 IP
  3. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #63
    I've answered the actual topic of the discussion. Yes, IMO, the listings from the husband/wife exes appear to merit cleanup, and of course as I no longer edit there my opinion requires no action on their part... they'll handle it as they see fit. I also answered your signature whine about Topix for the umpteenth time. I see no use in prolonging my presence in the thread.

    Best of luck insisting their staff defer to your judgment in deciding how to run their directory.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
    robjones, Nov 17, 2009 IP
  4. snooks

    snooks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    175
    #64
    Post removed - self edit.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
    snooks, Nov 17, 2009 IP