DMOZ Top Listed DOmains

no site needs 231,000 listings - I mean, come on.

How many sites were stuck waiting to be reviewed while editors were listing CNN 231,000 times?

 

This is a similar situation to what would be my catagory. I happen to be direct compitition to the editors site.

 

sounds like he got fired

 

Editors who voice their own opinions without prior approval tend to.

 

Does anyone else find it funny how quickly these "DMOZ" threads fill up. Such pent up hostility.

 

I was thinking the same thing - then I realized, ive made like 5 posts - and im not hosile at all -

 

I've gotten fired before, but those were jobs. Getting fired from a volunteer position makes me laugh.

 

I can!
I was starting to feel lost in the shuffle at DMOZ anyway. As you can see, there are editors who must be adding sites for a living practically, and that is not my game.

 

I think it is all about issues that have been in existance for too long and never gotten resolved. Everyone has a lot to say. We have all spent ample time listening to DMOZ editors lecture us about the guidelines while seeing inconsistencies within their own behaviour.

 

The Romans kept the frustrated poulation under control by letting them have colliseums - there they could vent their anger without bothering the government. Occassionly toss in someone to be killed in public. Then everyone went home happy, without realizing that they have no control about what is happening around them..

It seems there is a correlation with this forum.

 

I couldnt agree more.

 

So who are you? You are here? You seem to participate in every DMOZ thread in here.

 

Yep! If there is one person in this forum agreeing, then how many more are there that have no voice?

No, I quit...LOL

I speak my mind and it feels good. I don't live in closed universe.

Me too! (but others who have financial interests are not laughing.

 

We'll be interested to know if they delete your sites and which ones. Since, technically, by posting at DP it becomes an affiliated site and therefore one you must declare.

So, would they delete the sites they can prove are yours, the sites of your clients, or all your affiliations. Or do they get some schmuck to audit all your edits since time began...

 

I would be okay if they did that, but if they did that it would further reveal problems that are inherant. Fortunately, my sites don't depend on DMOZ. Whose site do? (that would be a great question)

 

I wouldn't doubt it. Decisions like those tend to be made when no one has to pay for the man-hours on a "project" like that.

 

I don't have anything to hide, but just look at the list, lots of people do have things to hide. I'd rather not disclose specific examples. But look at some of the examples:
http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html?page=14

 

First, he was not editor and then he was but he was fired. You also half admit to corruption by comparing DMOZ to romans, so why don't you go all the way and make full confession, after all they say that confession is good for soul.

Did you get many offers? It seems the editors are tired of pretending that they are not corrupt, so why not put a "Buy in Now" price for DMOZ listing on different editors site and get it over with these charades.

 

I disagree with macdesign's analysis of this phenomeon. I think that the real reason there are so many webmasters and SEOs that are furstrated with the ODP lies in the fundamental difference between the goals of the two.

We have discussed this in several threads on DigitalPoint over the past few months. "Web Professionals" as I have named them for convenience, feel that the ODP is not doing what they want it to do, and that therefore there is something inherantly wrong with the ODP. From your point of view you are absolutely correct - the ODP is very very wrong for what you are trying to do. And there are lots of problems, and things you can find which illustrate that. This includes sites that are listed multiple times, allegations of corruption, non-listing of certain sites and so on.

I have tried to put thing a little from the ODP point of view, without trying to preach. It's far from perfect - there are definitely sites out there which don't deserve as many listings as they have (and I, and others try to correct that), but there are some (like CNN) which have been chosen because of their high quality content (and yes, there is an editor project going on to get those bad links corrected). There are definitely self-interested editors in the ODP - and some of us try to root them out and they get terminated (and you have seen for yourself examples of this, even in this thread).

So please feel free to express your honest opinions - I'm not going to tell you they are wrong. Just recognise that the goals of the ODP and the goals of these frustrated people are not the same, and probably never will be, so it will not effect a change in the system.

I (and others) will continue to try to root out the bad editing, abusive editing, and previous decisions which, in retrospect were probably highly unfortunate. But even after all this is done, the ODP will still not be what most of you would like it to be. By design.