Everything that is mentioned as the type of sites that should not be listed, are already listed in DMOZ, would you like examples? An Admin or a Meta can list any BS site with no problem, there is always so many exception to any guideline just for "senior" editors to have the proper excuse.
Independent of what you think, this shows that there is a good market for corrupt editors. Why do you think that senior editors still hang on with so much critic and fight so hard to stop any attempt for ending corruption? I wonder how much an Admin or Meta make per year from listings?
most directories offer a free listing, see this thread: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=139069 or here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65 never use your primary email account if you register, some of this guys sell your email to spammers...
And only a fool believes that Admin and Metas support corruption and abuse because they are not smart enough to know better or supporting corruption is just natural tendency of them.
It is no surprise that a blind man can not see all the evidence of support of corruption and abuse by Admins and Metas. Some times being blind is much more convenience than facing the truth.
You never did answer the contrary evidence questions I put to you half a dozen times in another thread, did you? But this is sending yet another thread off on a tangent again.
Obviously brighter than you by your choice of friends. Which happens to contain a listing to a teen image gallery featuring "young girls masturbating and modelling nude" within the Shopping category. Perhaps you should have a word with your "friend" popotalk.
BY posting the cateogry publicly you killed your own chances of finding a corrupted dmoz editor as theyd get kicekd out after another one linked to this thread and to the category after it got 3 new links Anyway this is gainst dmoz morals and any morals cause bribing isnt cool. Id suggest you just keep trying ... every 3months to submit after IMPROVING your site. GL.
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Too bad you don't know the guy. At least the site is 2257 compliant stated at the bottom. How about the DMOZ listings. Are there any sign like that ?
Here's the shopping category: http://directory.v7n.com/Top/Shopping/ Not a single listing in that category. There listing you refer to appears, where it should, in the Sex/Image_Galleries/Teens/ category. It's a ontology similar to Yahoo directory: http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Shopping_and_Services/Sex/Adult_Galleries/ What exactly is your issue with that?
The directory has few listings because it's new, and because the price. The price is intended to deter the less committed, in order to preseve the directory as a selective web directory. If you think that adding hundreds of listings to each category would add value to the paid submissions, you're sorely mistaken.
but some people may pay a lot for such a link as you can see here. if you plan to sell this site later you can sure score some extra $ if you write "has dmoz listing", some people will bet lot more then.
You seem to have lost the plot on your own directory John. Your about page http://directory.v7n.com/About/ talks about creating a "definitive catalog of the web". Now you are waffling on about using fiscal barrier to create a "selective" web directory.
Nothing. As always some people pretend that they know everything. They may have 50,000 edits in their career with DMOZ but since DMOZ is aging, growing bald and slowly becoming extinct, they got stuck in time knowing none. Yay.