How to get listed in DMOZ, the easy way. 2 days.

The Google Co-Op is designed that each editor list sites that they have visited and know that it is quality site. Most likely Google will sort through suggestion with some kind of algorithm and list sites that they believe are quality sites in their directory. It is not designed, so a group of people can conspire together to join and at the same time use some kind of import tools to import the sites for each person, in order to give an artificial image of those sites popularity. I suppose after so many years of spamming DMOZ, it is hard to give up on old habits, specially when they can see the writing on the wall about the future of DMOZ.

 

Gworld since this is your conspiracy theory, then it must also certainly apply to anybody, like you, webmasters and seos much more. (Since many webmasters spam dmoz , other sites, and the internet all the time)

 

LOL, you are right, I never said or imagined that some of DMOZ editors are the only spammers in the whole Internet. While I agree that many will try similar things, so far, I have not seen any other group that is planning to try an organized manipulation of Google Co-op. My response was in regard to brizzie's post and his claims of DMOZ editors not being interested in Google.

 

LOL, 3 or 4 editors discussing in an internal forum (with the last post over a week ago) whether it is possible to have DMOZ listed in the Co-op is hardly "an organized manipulation of Google Co-op". Where do you come up with this garbage? You had better run to the local grocery store and stock up on aluminum foil - the aliens are coming, too.

 

Duplicate post

 

Finally, someone with a bit of backbone when challenged !
As for the 'unhinged' and 'delusional' stuff ? We'll see... Dmoz being 'my baby' is taking things a bit far and with respect OWG, you haven't obviously read my posts here either. Read them also before you make any assumptions about me. I know who you are.
Personally I prefer to take real life a little more seriously than the mere speculation that goes on here. I do some good works of my own in my personal life but don't feel they are relevant there. I enjoy researching and making my own mind up about 'conspriacy theories' that members posting here refer to time and again within Dmoz. Some I agree with, some I don't. Favourable or unfavourable Dmoz-wise makes no odds to me.
Gworld and Minstrel WILL admit that (lying if they don't). I've upset more than a few editors with a posts Dmoz wise and not agreeing with currrent policies as they stand.

Anyway in response :

Where have you seen them ? Or are you just 'glossing over things' with another sweeping statement. Back up saying things like that or they will be questioned I'm afraid. Where have you been privvy to applications ?

Lighten up a bit, this is a forum, not real life. If I'm arrogant what does it matter to you. At least I'm not running away with my tail between my legs at the first sign of trouble.
If my opinions affect you THAT much you might want to lie down with a flannel over your eyes instead of reading here. I dare because I disagree with you. Simple.

This is WHY I disagree. I don't have any websites, I do not care about seo and I prefer to look at the postive sides rather than the negative. Here it seems rather the opposite. I do my own thinking thanks and I also do not follow 'audit trails' either. I think yov'e become a bit blinkered along with the rest of those who sit back and critisise. You spend far too much time studying the very commercial and lucrative ( as you pointed out yourself ) areas.
Now point me out a few non-commercial categories and play the same 'crooked editor' card and it doesn't work does it ? You've got to be honest. Where do crooked editors fit in in sections that don't make money ?

FACT : DMOZ can not fulfill the roll it was intended to simply because it is incapable of processing the large volume COMMERCIAL submissions it gets. In my own non-commercial sections I have to go out and LOOK for them ! The same applies to 1000's or other categories and 100's of other editors.

Yes, that is because most only apply to edit commercial categories. This isn't rocket science. Most sites submitted are out to make money !!!
Send them over to Kid's and Teen's homework sections then, if editors are that keen? And are they ? Are they that keen on just editing and just being a Dmoz editor ?
Can you see a pattern here forming.

Commercial = Loads of sites
Commercial = Loads of Editor Applications.

You've missed the fact, all the critics have, that there is a HUGE difference between those that want to edit for the sake of it, and those that want to edit for percieved commercial gains. There is no 'fine line'. You either want to edit in Health/Cancer research or you want to edit in Shopping/Electronic Gadgets.
Now, I'll ask you again with your assumption that good editors are being refused, just what do you think the ratio is to those that apply to edit in Cancer sections to those that want to edit in Shopping sections ? Try to be honest since as mentioned, you've seen loads of good applications yourself ?

Lastly,

Cannot compete with what exactly ?

I know you're well respected in these circles OWG. But that doesn't mean you can make sweeping statements about things without backing them up with anything other than indignations someone has 'deigned' to disagree with you. Minstrel and Gworld are adequate enough (I suppose) for that sort of thing.
I'm going back on shift now. Ciao. In fact I may be absent for a little while due to my recent promotion. Time will tell.

Thanks to everyone for the green reps over the frilly french knickers !!

 

Wow! shygirl is giving brizzie a run for his money for the most long winded award.

 

The difference is that brizzie's long posts make sense, at least most of the time. Shygirl's should pretty much all be like the one just above there, where it says

 

LOL. That was pretty funny. Not nice, but funny.

 

First they make an environment that attracts those who only want to join so they can manipulate the system, why else some one wants to go through hell to edit a category that he/she has no interest in?

Second, they claim that the reason for not accepting applications is to keep the worse elements out, who else did they expect to apply?

Third, they are happy and proud that they have only accepted the bad ones, plus occasional worse applicants.

 

Dmoz is really going down...

I tried contacting the category reviewers, signing up as a reviewer,
and never got a reply, not even a rejection email...

Maybe somebody ought to start another ODP

 

That sounds like a great idea - of course you'd have to call it something else since that name is already taken

 

soooo gworld, don't you claim to be an editor?

 

"She plunged into a sea of platitudes, and with the powerful breast stroke of a channel swimmer, made her confident way towards the white cliffs of the obvious." ~ W. Somerset Maugham

 

That is hilarious. It really is. It is suggested that first time editors apply for categories that are not highly commercialised and subject to spam that can be difficult to detect. Because editing those categories requires a degree of trust and quite a lot of experience in spam detection. Rejecting editors for highly commercial spam prone categories is rejecting those most likely to manipulate. Who asks anyone to edit a category they have no personal interest in. If all your interests are in hotel booking sites, casinos, financial services, real estate, and garden furniture, you lead a sad life. What, there is no favourite author, no movie star you admire, no social issue or historical topic, no local community, no health subject, no form of art or culture, no computer game, nothing else you are interested in that would show your commitment to project principles except being assigned to deal with a category that you could do a lot of damage in if a mistake was made in your selection?

This was something raised by LVH elsewhere - his application was written by an experienced editall. Do you not think that meta editors are well experienced in dealing with applications that are clearly coached? And I mean beyond giving generic advice and tips that can be found in guidelines.

Well someone accepted you. Obviously more than once. But I don't think the ones responsible would be very proud of it! And the fact that you slipped on by is likely to reduce the chances of others being given the benefit of the doubt. You are someone who has manipulated and abused the directory through purchasing listed domains and then using them for your own benefit after all. You must admit there is a fault in a system that lets you in more than once.

Editors are discouraged from replying to email from submitters because of the risk (real risk) of ending up on the wrong end of threats including of physical violence. Sad but true. If you applied to become an editor then the system should have issued automatic acknowledgements you had to reply to and if rejected you would have been told. Conclusion - your application did not get through or you did not reply to an acknowledgement (spam filters have been known to intercept). The answer is to apply then check in the Resource Zone that it has been received if you don't get a reply.

 

​

 

Well that HAS to be the funniest and most ridicuolous thing I have ever read in a forum, Fair play to you , you win the prize

Who are these meta editors you speak of? GOLDILOCKS.

Ooh that application is too bad , lets reject it

ooo that application is too GOOD let's reject it.

AHHH this application is just right. Let's accept it all up.

Cmon Brizzie you are now taking this debate into the realms of fantasy and Hans Christan Andreson. Do you SERIOUSLY expect us to believe that applications are rejected because they appear to have been written by a meta editor? HOW can an aplication be too good? And as a point of interest WHY would an application having received assistance from another Meta be bad? SURELY you are not telling me that ALL metas do not sing from the same hymn sheet? ANYONE who received help from a meta editor should be welcomed with open arms surely? Because to reject an application that has received help from a high quality editor is to reject that very editor! If he/she is to be rejected, then surely they should not be editing.

Sorry but your premise of 'Ooh this applicant had help, let's reject the application', simply PROVES the fact that there is protectionalism within the DMOZ selection process.

So what is it then, are you wrong about 'too good application rejection syndrome' in which case you might well be wrong about all the rest of the stuff. OR are you RIGHT about it, by which case you have proven the very fact that there is division amongst the editors, and a conspiracy to 'control' editors?

 

Are you sure about that, or is it another claim like DMOZ has copyright which certainly was not true?

By the way, since it has become clear that DMOZ doesn't have any copyright, isn't better to stop with DMOZ enemy list and remove the list of web sites that do not mention DMOZ "supposed" copyright instead of wasting time and adding to that list?

 

LOL, Gworld you're such a drama queen! It's not an enemy list, it's a category that contains "license agreement violators" and I don't think anyone considers any of them an enemy.