Cheat your way in Ivan, like poopo. One day someone will get round to sorting them, Rome wasn't built in a day and that was a small project with lots of slaves comepared to ODP, we just don't have as many slaves
Is this all you've got name calling ? I thought you were way smarter than that. Stop fooling yourself most can read how desperate is your attempt to attack ex editors and as an inexperienced person in a forum you really suck to the highest degree. You cannot even read between the lines and know not of posting parables. Your bosses knows how a pain in the a$$ I am as I am a fifth grader.
There are definitely a lot of people who would love to discredit DMOZ by saying that all the editors are self-serving and/or corrupt, or that people are bullied for doing harmless things. There is another side to it, though, one that some editors come here to try to talk about. Unfortunately it's not sensationalist, and doesn't draw anywhere near as much attention, and isn't brought up routinely in every thread on this board. All I will say to our other readers is, just don't believe all that a few people would like you to believe. They may well have had a bad experience with being an editor in DMOZ, but there are plenty others who have not.
Though I must say, that with the two schools of thought that people seem to have about the ODP, both are well represented here. Look at how civil your posts are, now scroll up to the top of this page and see just how civil the posts of that anonymous editor are. Certainly makes the notion of a bad experience very believable. I think that there are many people that come to DP looking for answers and they see just how some of the crew really are. It certainly devaules the directory as a whole having spokemen that say 9 bad things for every nice one... Whether their words here are official or not, they are a reflection of what goes on at the directory itself. And that reflection tarnishes the worth of the link. When Ex-editors troll, talk bad about, or otherwise seemingly try to harm the directory, then the average reader should be able to see that these people are just trolls and then ignore them. Though when such things happen and their points are countered with that ex-editors edit count or the counter reply is made personal, then the average reader looks at the thread and does not see the ex-editor as a troll, but the editor. And that again shines a tarnishing reflection upon the worth of the link.
Q, you raise some good points, and I agree that the fighting and bickering goes both ways. It would be nice to have calm, measured discussions about the issues on a forum that has no perception of being moderated by pro-ODP factions. Doesn't seem like it's possible, though, unfortunately.
Isn't this solicitation to DMOZ break rules and guidelines? In law person who solicitation to commit felony is as much as guilty as one who committed it so you should be removed for inspiring others to break DMOZ guidelines. Besides I got few very big problems when it comes to cheating my ego is impossible to hide, I'm only interested in specific categories and I'm still thirsty for REVENGE!
What tarnioshers the directory in my view is when people become editors, list their own sites and then bunk off in a huff and start deriding it on forums like this, no names no pack drill. Also when people who brandish bits of private forums, accuse people of being paedophiles, and then admit to cheating their way into the directory. No names no pack drill. So the new tack, because I have got under both of the people's skins who are complaining is if we can't name call them, if we can't brow beat them, lets try and say they are bad for the directory. I did not start with the name calling and trying to give information here that was private but as others have done so I am prepared to continue. But the two of you should make good bedfellows you can change the babies nappy next time he poopos in it, Q.
I wonder if poopo has that problem, when an editor says his edits are not right, will he respond as here or is it "Yes sir, no madam, won't do it again madam" Kiss....
Got more reds for me Anonymously / Alucard / whoever was last? You seem to live up well to your poor reputations on this thread. None of you all powerful editors managed to explain how come the category I mentioned as an example, "Pirates of the Burning Sea" is FILLED with crap. Not ONE of the listed websites are about the game. They're ALL interviews, previews, "promotional trailers" (for christ's sake, a trailer, now that's a relevant link). Meanwhile websites dedicated to the game were rejected. And I was rejected as an editor there despite no updates in 5 months and I was applying in good faith. How can you actually expect people to consider that website seriously? The fact is that the 5-6 listings on Wikipedia in external links are 10x more relevant than the ones listed on DMOZ. If you take that as a personal attack then go cry somewhere else, it's just factual. Compare the websites listed and prove me otherwise. In the words of Matt Cutts, that DMOZ category is 100% aimed at Google instead of at users.
Certainly I can try to give you an explanation of what might have happened - a scenario, if you like. I haven't looked at the category, so I am giving you a typical scenario of how categories become "outdated" like this. At the time the category was last edited, the game may not have been published, or there weren't any sites around that were more definitive. People looking for information on the game would have been grateful at that time for reviews, trailers and snippets. Whichever editor made those edits (whether e passing editor who can edit in many categories or an ex-editor) moved on to other things, and the category has stagnated. Your site was more than likely not rejected - it is probably waiting in the list of sites that are awaiting review. Does this mean that the ODP is proud of this category and will use it as a shining example of what it does best? No, of course not. It's one of many categories (and I mean *many*) that are in the ODP that could desperately use the attentions of an editor who is interested in truly developing the category into a useful resource for surfers. This means willing to add sites other then their own, write good, legible descriptions, and work together respectfully with other editors in a team. Now, not saying this is what happened - just offering an alternative (and in my experience quite likely) explanation than the opinion that all editors are corrupt, no-lives.
And I agree with that explanation. So then why was I rejected for supplying websites (other than my own) that were actually "about" the game? You may blame me for a lot of things but does it seem like I write in SMS language, or something? This is what makes me suspicious about the website. Seeing people charge 50$ for DMOZ listings and being rejected for submitting sites that were not only relevant, had better informations than all the content's current listings.
As I said before: Oh and by the way - thanks for the repeat of the no-life comment. I sometimes do not get to respond to posts in a few days, because I actually believe in taking some time away from the internet to have a so-called no-life. The point that you brought up (and the questions associated with it) were very valid. It's a shame that we had to get off on such a negative footing.
I agree with that as well. My arguement is this: the category has outdated content (which you yourself admitted was probable), I submitted websites that were relevant, I showed that I was going to submit websites other than my own. It asks if you're associated with some website.. I naively said yes, and submitted 3 other websites. Even if you don't feel comfortable to comment about it, do admit it seems odd. They prefer having outdated categories than accept my application even though I had the honesty of stating which website I have associated to that content. It would have been pretty easy afterward to see if I was favorising mine. PS: I submitted my french sportsbetting website 6 months ago. That category hasn't been updated in almost a year! That's a LONG time with no updates.
Editor can list virtually all useful websites that exist on internet for relevant category and still get accused of self-interests - what is the point of having a metas which doesn't have a single clue about category topic and are incompetent to evaluate editors work? Like having MacDonald's supervisor checking if you did good job on putting together a web server - sure my burgers would taste awful if I attempted to fry them on CPU. You should look on the bright side, imagine if you wasted many nights searching for websites to list and now you have to watch those categories decaying because nobody is bothering to updated them even if you are regularly submitting new websites... Most of categories I use to maintain haven't even been restored to pre-crash condition, instead they are still missing my last few edits...
So what you are saying is that I should have stuck around and got thousands and thousands of deep links for my site and rather then making those listings myself, I should have had the entire process automated. That way I'd be following in the footsteps of the founders. Sorry, show which rule I broke... or take your accusations and point them at your fellow editors that have over TEN THOUSAND listings of their OWN sites. If I had nothing nice to say then I'd be posting it anonymously as well. Again, you are showing the true value of the ODP.
I'm trying to keep flames low on my end, but that's a silly statement and you know it. If someday you leave the cozy forum long enough to accomplish something like being founder of one of the worlds largest directories... you may find you have more cache there than the average editor, but pretending it's a general practice among editors is dishonest unless you know of "fellow editors" (note the plural use) to which that statement applies. You know better. To generally insult thousands of volunteers based on a unique sample when you know it isn't true that they do that is a fast track to destroying your credibility. Don't shoot yourself in the foot like that. I'd be embarrassed to be caught posting anything that disingenuous. Thanks ~ Rob
The FACT that DMOZ is founded on self inclusion is simply what? Silly? Just because there is one example of corruption means it's an isolated incident? yeah, could be, but that single issue involved over 10,000 links over 1,000 categories... and that's perfectly fine and dandy, yet it's me that is in the wrong for pointing it out. yeah. DMOZ certainly is the most important link.. if you are affiliated with TOPIX
Hey, if the founder of the directory getting to put his own stuff in the localities gives you heartburn to the point of calling it "corruption" you lead a sheltered existence. Good luck figuring out the real world. Sorry, thought I was talking to an adult. Of course pretending it is a practice of the rest of the editor base is just blatant dishonesty on your end (aka: trolling for effect). If you don't mind being seen lying, isn't my problem. Just pointing out the discrepancy between the truth and what you said. Hey, fire away, it's your foot.
Yes... I list a site I am affiliated with along with a small group of others in a bottom category and I'm accused of self interest and then of leaving in a huff. When I point out it was just one site, I'm told that listing 10k deeplinks is a perk of being a top rung editor. *shrug* Lead by example? If it was truly self interest on my part I'd have kept quite and listed the rest of my sites and maybe gotten a few deeplinks to boot. I don't know, it's not me that gives value to the ODP, though I did my part. Now it's up to the editors that are there. If there is value in upholding the self inclusion of 10k listings by a single member of the ODP, then I guess that is their right to claim such value... but then, if that's OK, then it should be OK to have a site or 50 from every editor listed... I mean, that is leading by example, and the ODP is the leader of directories. Get in good with a high ranking editor, you may find that you can get a few deep links in. I mean, it's the right of the rank to hold such things as pushing affiliated sites. Isn't that right Mr. Jones? I'm bad for listing one site, Skrenta is well within his rights to set up a program to automatically list his own affiliates within a HUMAN edited directory. Yes, yes, there is value in being a ranking editor. With such power you can taste the true value of the ODP as your personal listing service. And feel free to point out any lies I've told. I'm expecting a link.. come one, show the readers of this thread I've mislead anyone. Q