1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

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

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by gworld, Apr 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #81
    A meta can approve applications. Why would they write an application then not approve it? Unless there was some deception involved? Deception = bad.

    No, you believe what you want. If the conspiracy theories appeal to you then go with it, it is your mental health to do with as you want.

    There is a difference between help in terms of giving tips and hints so people don't make silly mistakes, and actually or more or less writing the application. You said "I have been party to submitted applications that were written by a meta editor" - that isn't help it is deception and of course it is right that such an application is rejected. But why would a meta write an application then not approve it himself? Let's be clear here - a meta who writes applications for others is abusive and if that has been detected it can't be a bad thing.

    These conspiracy theories are hilarious, totally lacking in credibility. Do you really think it is possible for hundreds of metas from all different walks of life and different countries to all conspire over the Internet for year upon year and never once have any credible evidence exposed? Metas have been evicted for abuse themselves, metas have resigned on principle, some metas are fundamentalist puritans who are suspicious of the motivations of their own grandmothers. And in all those years not one has ever come forward and confirmed these conspiracy flights of fantasy. Not one out of hundreds, some of them pretty pissed off when they left. Why might that be?

    I spent 3.5 years in DMOZ, most of that as an editall. Tens of thousands of edits crossing every branch. And not exactly known for being backward about expressing my opinions and opening cans of worms. Yet I was granted every category I applied for by a different meta every time (I think), promoted to editall and given free reign over the entire directory. If metas are protectionist then I would have been their worst nightmare yet instead of squashing me they gave me wider and wider rights. I am living proof that your conspiracy theory is pure crap.

    Why do editors get declined, either to become editors or to expand their rights. Either deception, not being up to the job (can't spell, don't check their work, can't apply guidelines), or in many cases pure laziness - not reading and applying the huge amount of information freely available on how to become and expand as an editor and often coupled with arrogance.

    Sorry, but you said you were an editor, you cannot seriously believe that :D You must know that the most independently minded of editors are those most likely to become editalls, i.e. promoted. Your theories simply do not stack up in the face of reality.

    However, if you prefer your conspiracy theories then who am I to convince you otherwise. In fact my next door neighbour is an alien and my mother was a secret KGB agent though both deny it when confronted with the inescapable evidence. Who else but an alien has a weed free lawn and who else but a former KGB agent wears bright red cardigans in summer?

    Is it possible that there are one or two metas gone bad who may have abused their position when it comes to editor applications? I have no doubt that there have been such meta editors. I accept entirely the possibility that there may be isolated examples of such metas still serving and not yet caught. Not even an Admin would deny that possibility. But there is a huge difference between one or two bad eggs operating in such a way as to have avoided leaving evidence sufficient to prove abuse resulting in removal, and a systematic conspiracy.
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  2. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #82
    Call it, what ever you like but don't you think it is time to dispose of it since DMOZ clearly doesn't have any copyright. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 8, 2006 IP
    maldives likes this.
  3. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #83
    Haven't you written to the AOL legal department yet to point this out?
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  4. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #84
    [​IMG]
    :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  5. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #85
    The gworld approach to editing:
    [​IMG]
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  6. CReed

    CReed Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,969
    Likes Received:
    594
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #86
    Would there be another reason why this "category" isn't visible in the public directory?
     
    CReed, Jun 8, 2006 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  7. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #87
    You wouldn't want to give a backlink and potential PR gain to a site considered a licence violator?
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #88
    OR

    You don't want to take a public stance that can be challenged in an open court and reduce the value of DMOZ to zero when it is proved in court that there is no copyright. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  9. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #89
    Ah, more
    [​IMG]
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  10. CReed

    CReed Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,969
    Likes Received:
    594
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #90
    Backlink and potential PR - I'm sure you can suggest better reasons than those - I always hear editors claim that PR and backlinks are not related to, nor a concern of dmoz. :)
     
    CReed, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  11. Old Welsh Guy

    Old Welsh Guy Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    291
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #91
    I never said I was an editor, I said I have seen it from both sides of the fence. I have many friends who are editors, who have shown me the sort of thing that goes on. I also never said it was sytematic. There are many editors who do a great job, in fact the nulk of editors do, but there is a core that are in it for themselves. This is the group working often together but mostly individually who are dragging it down. Multiple self pomoting inclusions, changine site descriptions of competitors or moving the site to another category, which is often condemning it to limbo hell.

    If DMOZ charged for inclusion, then 90% or more of the spam would disappear overnight. How easy a solution is that? I have no problem volunteering to edit a commercial directory, hell I do just that with Skaffe.
     
    Old Welsh Guy, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  12. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #92
    LOL, :D

    Yes, you're right I was long-winded ( I was a bit drunk celebrating !) and whoever repped me with 'you are an arrogant bitch' well, I'd expect nothing less. But I do apologise, I don't partake often.

    Anyway I'm completey sober tonight and have one simple comment :

    Easy enough if you can afford it I suppose ? What happens if you can't ?
     
    shygirl, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  13. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #93
    But you don't have a problem giving backlinks and potential PR gain to sites promoting anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, and sucide? If people injure or kill themselves, that's okay but we'll severely punish copright violators?

    There's something wrong with that picture, brizzie.
     
    minstrel, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  14. compostannie

    compostannie Peon

    Messages:
    1,693
    Likes Received:
    347
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #94
    Severly? You think that's severe? :)
     
    compostannie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  15. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #95
    I wouldn't personally list the self harming sites were I still an editor, and neither would most serving editors - I wouldn't be thinking about backlinks or PR in making editorial decisions (you can't think like that and edit effectively) either - I just object to them so would exercise my right not to list them. When it comes to the licence violators I merely suggest the backlink issue as being one reason for keeping them in Test and I wouldn't say that this is severe punishment. In fact licence violators don't tend to publicise their violation by submitting their site, they are usually uncovered in surfing the Internet or tales being told. So they aren't being punished at all.

    I can actually, thinking back to those sites I have sent to the licence violators category. You find a site you *think* violates the licence, usually by accident, rarely through a submission. You send the site to the Unreviewed section of the Licence Violators category with a detailed note of why you suspect the site of violations. Someone who knows what they are looking for in terms of proof of violation will review the site at some point. If indeed it is a violator then by definition it will not have unique content and is not listable. Therefore it should be clearly noted as such and listing it in that category sends out that message. If the site is not a violator but is a DMOZ clone then there is a public category it can be sent to for listing. If it is not a violator and is not a clone then it can be considered for regular listing. Whichever way you go there is no punishment involved - the licence violator has cloned DMOZ content, is not unique content, cannot be listed under general guidelines. An exception to the unique content rule is that clones that give attribution can be listed but only in one specific area put aside for that purpose.
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  16. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #96
    I think you're boxing yourself into a corner, brizzie.
     
    minstrel, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  17. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #97
    I made the mistake of saying backlink as an off the cuff suggestion without thinking about the times I have sent sites to the licence violators cat ... ;) In reality the backlink theory can't work.
     
    brizzie, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  18. mirainfo

    mirainfo Active Member

    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #98
    Hey its not as har das you think it is.

    Just push your site to a reginal directory
     
    mirainfo, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  19. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #99
    Don't stop, if the other fantasy excuse is also proved to be wrong, you can always make a new story. ;)
     
    gworld, Jun 8, 2006 IP
  20. Old Welsh Guy

    Old Welsh Guy Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    291
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #100
    Sorry, I think I should explain better. I edit Skaffe Uk, people have to pay to go in Skaffe, but Bruce's vision is to create a damn fine resource as well as make money. As editors we can add sites for free, and do so all the time, some people pay, but the BULK of them are damn good sites that the editors add themselves.

    I come across really good sites constantly in my every day work (Like surfing this forum). People post links to a site, I follow the link, and if it is a good site, I add it to the directory. I can add stuff for free to anywhere in Skaffe, but I can only approve it if it is a UK site. This combination of pay and for free is the perfect balance IMo. it allows editors the time to actually build a god resource, while allowing those who wish to pay the small fee to opportunity to do so.

    The result is that once a section is sufficiently developed the only real option of getting in is pay. Whereas non commercial areas really never get saturated, as the sites that are built in those areas tend to be unique, as they are built through altruism rather than reward.

    If the ODP is to survive then I can see no other way than for it to start making a charge for inclusion, the charge would cut the spam submissions by 70-90% overnight IMO, this would allow the editors the time initially to clean up the backlog, medium term to clean up the index, long term to put it back where it should be as the best web directory available online.

    <added It wasn't I that repped you, If I ever leave rep I ALWAYS leave my name :) >
     
    Old Welsh Guy, Jun 9, 2006 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.