Doesn't this just piss you off?

Birdie, cbp, or what ever else that you call yourself in different forums.

If anybody is known for dishonesty is you, so go back to RZ or the other forum that you can delete the posts.

I will also thank the DMOZ the editors for their anonymous red reps, it proved my point about they being aware of corruption and fighting hard to protect it.

 

Ohhh...Wait, I didn't see this.

Man I was really starting to feel it, this forum doesn't have the usual options I like, but I did JUST notice it allows ignore.

I feel better now, sorry I don't normally get into flamewars but that is one guy I think I best avoid for the foreseeable future.
Weird, I never understood why some folks can't resist the temptation to play with fire...

Thanks for the kind advice.

 

This has to be a long post too, as my nick is mentioned in more than a few posts; sorry for that.

Well, the rdf dump is not enough, but combine it with WHOIS information and you get my point. any dir that changes (-10 sites, an then + 5 others , all owned by one person/one NameServer should be a hint)

2 weeks is just an example. I have seen editors assigned to a category inactive for 6 months, nothing happens. 2, 4, 6, 8 weeks, you decide.

A site can fit 2, 3, 4 categories, no problem. Things go wild when a site has 10+ listings, and other sites can not be listed for some reason. Any site with more than 2 listings (or 1 or X) should be monitored and ONLY allowed to be there if X editors approve.

Why? In all the dmoz-rules I read about "quality"... just signing up to be a dmoz editor (for 2 hours) gives any site enough quality to be added?

That's what my point is: ALL editors give time, that's valuable and should be appreciated. SOME editors use their privileges to get something in reward (links/pagerank/money, whatever, not for me to say) and the rest are lamers for not doing so and drop out after a few months. As long as a few editors DO get the rewards they were looking for, the rest will feel left behind. Give all editors equal credits! 0 credits can be an option too. (not mentioning editor names etc)

1) whatever, it is a database of links
2) Why should I be in charge of reporting abuse, I hate that. If I can import an RDF dump into an sql database, so can you. If I can run a 'list all domains with 10+ listings' query, so can you. Come on, passing the ball to me is just not fair. You offer a (great) free service that is being abused from the inside out and you want external people like me to identify them?

Everything I have written about DMOZ and being bad, wasn't about you pagode, I know you try to do things right! If I was you, I would have been pissed off by all those lame dmoz editors that make you post in threads like these. It should just be fun to be a dmoz editor, and you should be able to be proud of it too! Wish you all the best, seriously!

And to all dmoz editors asking me for 'evidence', do your homework please.. it is your site afterall not mine !

and:
I like DMOZ, I like the idea behind it, I love all the true editors that spend some time to keep there cat up to date! All I wanted to do with my previous posts is to help you guys out to improve services, and please see it as such

 

Topsites - you are seriously mistaken and you know you are, you have been told this by other editors - a number of times - you don't have to believe me either - but I also checked the history of your site and it was added by your competitor and removed by a senior editor.

The category an editor is named in may not be one they're working in. Let's take me for example: I'm a named editor in http://www.dmoz.org/Sports/Equestrian/Breeds/ - the last edit on that category is November 24, 2005. Based on this date, you would think that I haven't made an edit since then (not true, I edit almost every day ). The thing is I also edit in all the categories under that one, a Shopping category, a Business category, and some Regional categories.

We do have a time out - if an editor hasn't made an edit for four months. Most of the time, they can request reinstatement and start editing again even after they've timed out. For new editors, they have to log in within 30 days of approval or they time out. Why was four months chosen? I don't know - but IMO it seems pretty reasonable, considering the other constraints on editors time.

 

Are you still stealing webmaster's bandwidth by embedding photos from their sites into high traffic forums?

There's something new...gworld crying about red

 

If you still can not admit that there was no WMD, even when Bush admits to it, then don't come here and post in DMOZ thread with your irrelevant personal attacks.

Bush administration has ideologically gone bankrupt and no amount of personal attacks will change that. I understand that those pictures exposing your Nazi friends killing the Jews in Germany was unpleasant for you but by bringing it up all the time, you just expose more and more yourself and your ideology of hatred.

P.S. for those who don't know the background, I put a image link in my post to pictures showing Gtech friends (Nazi soldiers) killing innocent people and putting them in mass graves.

 

Yes, I agree. Just report the exact situation to DMOZ-abuse and it will be looked at.

OK, we have this. If an editor is inactive for 4 months the account will expire. But this does say nothing about acitivity in 1 specific category. An editor can be assigned to several categories. An editor is allowed to work in all categories listed below the one on which his name appears. Several 100ths editors are allowed to work in parts or the whole of DMOZ without their names appearing on categories.

Yes, why not. As can be read on http://dmoz.org/about.html

You decide if you want to give or not.

I prefer to se it as our site, both yours as mine. The only difference is that I am contributing to it and your are not yet doing so. Editors do not owe anything we are just giving it some of our sparetime.

 

If I am not mistaken other than from this forum and the thread that was created this section in DMOZ hasnt been touched for 6 to 8 months other than to remove 6 sites I found and showed on this forum as being dead links, I check and snapshot this section about once a week or about every 10 days. Why is that?

http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_Amer...s_and_Economy/Real_Estate/Residential/Agents/

 

I can't say for sure, since I can't see inside everyone's thoughts , but my best guess would be because no one has wanted to work in that category, but instead want to work on other categories or other issues.

 

You are mistaken. Several websites were listed there during December and several others were removed from public view. You aren't just looking at the site total are you ?

 

I know that a few were removed cause I was the one who found the dead links and posted them here, as for looking at the site total yes I do look at that but I know that sometimes you have included a site and it hasnt shown up yet. The site totals however have been the same for the last several months other than removing those sites I found to be dead links which those reflected in the site totals that night.

 

I see more problems with DMOZ then I have with any other thing on here or any where.

When I used to visit the DMOZ forums a long time ago they were always a mess and the editors did very little or nothing to bring order back.

I feel someone ether needs to deal with things a little better or have a little more control over things.

It has gotten to the point where no one knows what the left hand is doing from the right and I feel very few people care to gain control.

So I can see very easy how a site like this or many others could have 26 or 260 listings.

Its because they grew to large to quick and ether don’t have enough editors or they do and there is no one over seeing any one so there free to do what they want with what ever they want.

The people I feel bad for are the ones that back DMOZ finically because they don’t realize the mess it is and the money there flushing down the toilet.

About that site in question if you want to follow the GUI internet Standards it fails very badly.

 

You feel bad for AOL? They spend more money sending me CDs - useful DVD style plastic boxes these days instead of those cheap cardboard ones. AOL staff provide the technical skills and until last year supplied the head honcho Editor in Chief who made all the senior appointments and oversaw all the policies. It is inconceivable they are unaware of the state of the project but clearly don't believe it is either a mess or a waste of money. The overseer role played by AOL is the strongest evidence that there is not widespread systematic corruption - they wouldn't tolerate it.

 

Yes I do feel bad for AOL because there are better ways they could spend there money even if it’s a tax right off.

I don’t care if they have the same amount of money as bill gates or the owner of Apple I still feel it could be run better or the money could be used better then to have a directory that has no control and loose of focus.

 

Flawed logic, brizzie.

(1) these are the same people who gave the world the AOL browser so let's face facts: they are not exactly renowned for competence - just marketing

(2) the fact that they haven't done anything to clean up the DMOZ act may have more to do with their perception either (a) that no one cares or (b) that it would cost more money to do so than it is worth

 

Yes and the more time this is not fixed the bigger the mess will be in the long run as well as more costly so I feel that they ether need to ditch this project or clean it up.

But my guess is that they will end up letting it build up to a point were it dies because i mean how much you going to throw money at something.

 

there's a typo in your signature SEO-MAN, Reciprocal not recipcal

 

Thank you will fix

 

Ah well, if you try ringing them to cancel a free trial it is true the phones are manned by chipmunks supervised by a semi-trained former circus chimp. But as you say not bad at marketing. The Netscape brand is on every DMOZ page and you wouldn't have thought the marketing people would want that if the product was as bad as some claim.

Or (c) there is nothing fundamentally wrong. Who knows really? Take your pick but I can guess what an official statement might say. That isn't to say there aren't things to do to fix some poor perceptions and some serious maintenance to do on some of the guidelines. Fixing perceptions doesn't appear to be a priority (sadly) but that doesn't mean the underlying product is fundamentally flawed.

 

I will agree with you that the biggest problem by far is probably public relations.