Is DMOZ even relevant anymore??

If the category is small, and the content is syndicated, I'd actually suggest finding the source...in fact, I suggest finding the source for ALL the topix listings and list those instead.

And as for little by little, if UNIQUE content was actually something editors cared about they should be vanishing a lot by a lot...but we all really know where the ODP stands don't we...

 

LOL.

What unsubstantiated charges of corruption and wrong doing? There is more than enough proof for those who are not blind on purpose to see the evidence because they are more interested to suck up to higher editors in DMOZ.

I suppose I answered my own question about why you are not able the see the corruption and abuse in DMOZ.

 

http://www.dmoz.org/Kids_and_Teens/

In fact, I believe one of them ended up as a meta editor.

LMBO, what a crock of garbage. Meta editors don't approve or disapprove each site listed by an editor, unless a new editor requests a category check as part of the learning process, and he was so totally inept that he just couldn't learn.

And, it most certainly doesn't have to be a meta editor, anyone who has experience can give such advice, I've done it many times, but it almost always involves how to write titles and descriptions, or which category a site belongs in.

It's extremely rare that an editor can't learn how to edit properly and the types of sites that are acceptable and those we won't and don't list. I doubt this guy was ever an editor at all, just from what he says. lol

 

Ahh, gworld, I missed ya brother, where you been? Your comments have lost their effectiveness, I've heard the same tune too many times.

 

And there's my pal, Q, singin his favorite tune too. Jeez, it's like home comin week. Where's minstrel? You guys are all like family, I've got lots of fond memories .

 

We would sing different tunes if DMOZ actually cared rather then having their editors just say they do

I hope it is safe to assume that such an editor is COPPA compliant....though with the 'up to date' status of DMOZs leading edge technology, I'm sure they don't even know what COPPA is... I mean, heh, they don't even use a database

 

I sure as hell don't.

 

If you've made a suggestion and you don't have a site up for listing, then your suggestion is not from the webmaster perspective that I'm talking about, hence you (again) miss the point. I didn't think that really needed to be spelled out for you.

Suggestions made by webmasters (and to be very specific, so you do not misunderstand once again -- this means webmasters who are expecting their site to be listed) generally include paid listing services, so on and so forth. I honestly do not care enough about your suggestion to look for it, nor do I have any authority to do anything about it. I'm a user of this forum, and just see a lot of rubbish posted here (i.e. A friend of a friend of a friend's uncle got demoted for listing x.) If you'd like to call that 'null and void', go for it; that's your prerogative and you're just wasting your own time here anyway.

Of course. I understand that there are probably plenty of great suggestions that could improve the ODP (sourced from webmasters and end-users), and I'm not disputing that. I'm saying, generally, that most suggestions made by webmasters serve their own intentions, and quite a lot of the time their site has an underlying reason that it's not listed. The #1 suggestion I would give to DMOZ is to actively find more editors, since there are a lot of categories that go untended. Having said that, though, I really don't care enough to bitch and moan about it on a forum -- I happen to prefer search (over directories) much, much more.

 

Do you realize that most senior editors are involved in web business even if they pretend to be middle aged women from middle America, don't you?

The difference between paid listing and present situation is that with paid listing there will be a uniform price and the money will end up in AOL account which may be can be used for improving DMOZ while right now, the money ends up in senior editors account and they charge the web masters as much as they can. This way there is no possible benefit for ODP and only causes negative image.

 

It's very interesting. In your previous post (Aug 18th 2009) you were accusing me of making suggestions for my own convenience; now you say "If you've made a suggestion".
Well, if you don't have the finest idea what my suggestions are or whether I did a suggestion at all, please abstain yourself of posting. Avoid ridicule and leave DMOZ defence to other people for DMOZ sake. haha

 

That's a good idea BUT that will let the profit in AOL's hands. And the editor figure would lost his "power". Do you reckon a DMOZ editor would support that motion?

 

DMoz editors in commercial categories would be employees. Volunteers would only be editing not-for-profit categories which would remain free. I suspect sooner or later it will happen because for the owners of DMoz there is massive earning potential there.

 

Please see:

You are more than welcome to nitpick all you like. The fact is that this post implies that the 'we' (collectively including you) - as webmasters - have provided feedback that is fallen on deaf ears. Sorry, but the only logical inference to be made here is that you yourself have provided some sort of feedback (read:suggestion) as a webmaster.

One would have to ask you to take your own advice. If you don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, (i.e. it is a bunch of random hearsay), abstain from posting.

I digress.

 

I tend to think a much better approach would be to accept money for reviewing the sites (i.e. editors are still in power / still volunteer), but only high-caliber sites are listed. (Same requirements as currently implemented, however, without all the spam build-up)

 

Please explain what you mean by high-caliber

 

What you (editors) write here is, from our (non-editors) point of view, a bunch of random hearsay. In the other hand we have postings (in the web) from a lot of former editors criticizing DMOZ.

Why should your word be trusted more than former editor's? Specially when some of them had revealed their identities already. And when former editor's words seem to explain what we see from out-side so much better that yours.

According to you DMOZ is a garden of roses. I don't think so.

 

Would you say that our blog is random hearsay? It's the same things that are being said here. Emily is AOL Staff. You know, the people who own the Directory, and pay the bills for it. Do you think incorrect information would be allowed in the official ODP blog, run by AOL Staff?

And if what you say is true, why aren't those former editors speaking here, or are you just eavesdropping on their conversations and all of a sudden figuring you're an expert now about editing?

As a current editor of 8 years, I can tell you don't know squat, and really shouldn't be giving out any advice. You do a disservice to everybody by giving out incorrect information. You should be ashamed and aplogize for misrepresenting yourself as someone who is in the know, because you aren't.

 

In DMOZ blog you can see comments from several former editors supporting what outsider think about DMOZ.

 

1. I am not an editor.
2. I don't think you understand what hearsay is. Not one thing that I have posted is hearsay.

 

Come on Jim, you know what he means...
he just can't spell "unique" in the way you Geniuses Editors managed to massacre the meaning of that word




fastreplies