How do I get listed on DMOZ

@caprichoso
Instead of just shooting your mouth off, why not show everyone exactly ONE THING I have done wrong, one incident of editorial abuse or one way in which I have served my own interest.

You are so fast to flap your gums ....Im an editor, you state we are corrupt, so either "Put up or shut up"! Just show me one incident and I will make it even easier, here is my Editor Profile

Sure, you may find some dead links, possibly other errors but lets see one case of editorial abuse! Just one case is all i ask.

I expect an apology in the forum when you cant provide one

 

How do you expect him to do that with your editor profile? Do you really believe people be fooled so easily with your theatrical?

You have to give him your edit log, so he can go through it.

 

Ah Gworld.

Another of the "mouthpieces"

Simple really.....you can see the cats i edit, being corrupt and all, well i thought you or him could point out which sites i have "self served" with, which ones i have been paid to include etc. Perhaps all the other things like ediorial abuse etc.

You say we are all corrupt etc, well it should be mighty easy to show the facts......feel free to go ahead.

 

another better idea is that..just try to get a page rank first...if you have a page rank then list in dmoz. it would list you fast rather then a brand new one day old site.

 

Sorry but it would not. I have listed over 20,000 sites and I have not got a clue what the PR was of any of them. Sad to say i would not even know where to look to find it. I have also listed many new sites when they had the unique content that i was looking for.

If a site is listable then it really is about when an editor gets around to reviewing that category and wants to use the suggestions pool as one of the resources. Somew just do want to clear the suggestions and decide if we want them or not. But there is no way that anyone can predict when that will happen.

 

The world doesn't spin around you, buddy.

Do you want one more case of editorial abuse? You should have enough by now. But, as you wish -> http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1501398

You should think that asking for apologies make people believe you are speaking the truth. I have to warn you: people visiting this forum isn't that naive. And you are insulting them with this kind of behaviour. Instead of being here denying the scam DMOZ is, why don't you go there an try to clean up the mess?

 

Snooks seems a good editor. Damn pity he wasn't the editor responsible for adding my site.

They easily added the worst of my three blogs but haven't got around to the other two. Sigh

 

Thats right, not all in here are naive.

They can clearly see that your posts have no validity and that your calling all Editors corrupt and self serving is no different from saying all Chinese are bad, all black people are bad, all Croations are bad, etc.

Your constant complaining and adverse comments speak more for your character than anything else.

 

It's Croatians and I am not a racist, may be you are.

Can you show me the post where I said "all DMOZ editors are...". Of course you can't, not every DMOZ editor is corrupt. In fact, I can quote myself in several threads making clear not every DMOZ editor is corrupt.

It's funny you have chosen to forget about the link proven corruption/self-promotion into DMOZ, all of a sudden. Again, you ask for proof and, when you get it, you don't know what to do with it. Then you behave like nothing is happening.

Usual DMOZ-metaeditor reaction to corruption claims is: nothing happens here.

 

LOL....you are a crackup You correct a spelling mistake i made in Croatians, despite you making numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. Very cute

You made this statement.......so show me where i have served my own interests or accepted money for publishing a site. Quite simple really....IF you had a fact to refer to but nope, as usual, just your mouth and no facts.

 

Considering English isn't my first language, and you are from Australia, you should be much better than me. Anyway, it seems that you learned to spell Croatians finally.

About the proves, well, you got the link some posts ago. May be you "didn't see it" but any interested reader will be able to go there and see for himself/herself.

You can pretend proves aren't there, but that won't make them disappear.

 

You are talking in circles.......you are also avoiding the fact that you cannot backup the claims and lies that sprout from your mouth

You have been invited numerous times to show the people in the forum simply 1 site that I have edited for self serving reasons or 1 site that i have listed for payment.

You clearly stated all editors do it! Your words were

I guess you dont have the guts to admit you have lied but fortunately the posters in here can read the threads and see yet again, nothing to back up your claims about ALL ediors, including me.

Rather than go around in circles and exchange insults, i will refrain from further replies as they arent required, you simply could not back up your claims (yet again).

Cheers

 

A few points...

• A good "corrupt" editor will NOT show signs of abuse under his/her own profile.
• Some editors have more then one account, some editors hide behind anonymous names.
• Did anyone point to you specifically? (when someone says YOU they are often speaking about editors in general and not you specifically)
• Not all editors are corrupt
• SOME editors certainly are...
• DEFINE PROOF!
  It does seem that even when proof is offered up, it is rejected by the editor base as insubstantial... and while editors keep asking for proof, they never actually define proof. It's clear that a COMPLETED transaction of a freelance linking site with POSITIVE feedback is not good enough, so exactly what is it you are waning in the way of proof?

 

That sure looks like a punt at all/any editor and must therefore include Snooks, I and all editors.

 

I found it frustrating. But I have the impression that it is good to be listed there.

 

only IF you are one of the self serving editors...

And I assume that when you say things about "webmasters" you are also referring to the owners of the sites you list, the people that own the directory, and your fellow editors that own web pages.

EDIT: or that when editors talk (on the internal forums) about the "trolls at DP" they are also referring to you and snooks?

Though, to note... the ODP was founded by self serving editors! Just ask Skrenta

 

He said sites were listed for money or delf serving editors STOP. That says that the sites are listed for money and self serving editors, just re-phrase that
"Did anyone point to you specifically? (when someone says YOU they are often speaking about editors in general and not you specifically)"
Are we not editors in general? or does editors in general exclude some?

 

Well, it's really hard to tell when you are posting Anonymously... it's OBVIOUS you have something to hide...so maybe there is a ring of truth in the statement? Who is to really say... its your word against his, as you can not prove you are an honest editor and he can not prove you are not, in your case its up to the reader to decide... but again, you obviously are hiding something

 

Thanks. I don't care to take the time or patience to argue beyond my apology. It was meant in good intentions and I apologized and it won't happen again.

Maybe it will be better if I go back and edit the post itself for anyone who will view it in the future.

 

got same prob here, i've submitted 4mouth ago and ....... no result