Is Demoz a trap for new webmasters to waste their valuable time?

Anyone can join that site and open a job for a DMOZ listing and see for themselves, you don't have to take my word for it.

 

LOL, I know that, that's why I posted an actual example of a completed task for a dmoz listing with a positive review in counter of your personal example without anything to back it up

 

Right, we believe you, NOT.

Why to make inquiry when you had no intention to buy a link? Are you feeling the DMOZ paranoid already and removing your signature sites? ODP still have access to your edit log and affiliation declaration when you applied.

 

This forum contains more then enough evidence (and I'm not thinking about gworld posts), there are several old threads about removed editors.

So please enlighten me with evidence of the horrible crimes I've committed, the fact that metas never published single proof about my crimes with which they could easily prove that I'm fraud only says they got no evidence and that I was removed based on lies.

 

I thik I've discussed this already, and I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again.

What does my Digital Point signature have to do with my DMOZ membership status? don't worry about me, I follow the rules.

 

The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" spring to mind.

 

The same three words come to mind each time DMOZ editors ask for proof of anything....

Posts like the one from Ivan never seem to go anywhere. I wonder why that is...

Pot? Kettle?

 

Unfortunately people seem to assume that what removed editors post here is the truth.
However, the requirements for confidentiality (even after they are removed) prevents us from posting the facts leading to their removal. Many of them rely on that. (Not all. Definitely not all.)

That is the simple reason why discussion about editor removal does not belong in a public forum. The editor knows precisely why they were removed but does not want to say, and meta editors know precisely why they were removed but cannot say. So discussion is pointless.

 

That still falls back to an issue of he said/she said... and even with letting them know, the process of it is still a bit messed up is it not? I mean, actual proof is not allowed to be shown to the editor in question as that falls back on the guidelines. So what it truly seems from the outside is that editors can be blindsided by a small handful of meta editors.

 

That's not what I said. The editor is always aware of the reason, but we are not at liberty to make those reasons public, and the editor is understandably unwilling to do so.
Hence the pointless nature of such discussions.

Yes I know, and that is very frustrating for all of us.

 

i actually think it still is useful. i checked the backlinks of the number one spot in google of my competitor and it was linked by DMOZ and other directories that base their listings from dmoz. and the other competing sites did not.

 

OTOH, lots of editors find new websites to grow their categories by using search engines.

Chicken and egg huh ?

 

May be because those people have much much more credibility than DMOZ senior editor will ever have.
What "confidentiality" are you hiding behind when the person in question has publicly and many many times asked that the reason for his removal to be revealed?
Who are you protecting in this case? "confidentiality" seems just like very good excuse to hide your lies behind it.

 

Usually when you accuse somebody of something your suppose to produce evidence otherwise your LYING! You have yet to present single evidence that I committed some horrible crime with which I deserved removal!

I have no problems for ALL the facts to be revealed it seems that only metas want them kept hidden, I wonder why?

Your LYING while giving link that says PRECISELY opposite to your claims - editors DON'T know PRECISELY why they got removed (unless some friendly meta tips them off - anonymously off course), only discussion about editors crimes occurs in meta forum to which only metas have access so outside meta circles nobody can see evidence let alone know precises reasons he/she got removed, he/she can only speculate as to whose ego got hurt and why did that meta decided to have them removed.

 

There is absolutely no need to speculate, when the policies and guidelines of the directory are available for everyone to read. Editors are removed for only a few very specific actions which are also clearly documented. So there is no mystery at all, except why removed editors continue to proclaim their innocence in such a heated fashion that the phrase "he doth protest too much" comes readily to mind.

 

Hmm. So on the one hand you claim that editors at risk of removal are never told anything by those evil metas, and then you say that they are told ... by "friendly" ones. So which is the version that you are remembering? And what did you do with the advice you were given?

Oh and if the advice is "anonymous", how would the editor know it was from a meta? And why would the meta want to be anonymous anyway, if they were being friendly and offering advice to help an editor keep their account??

As an argument, it lacks a certain cohesion.
Not to mention veracity.

 

It is OK. By now, we are all used to your posts.

seriously, don't you ever get tired of repeating the "official" BS while you know that everyone here knows that you are lying?