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.
  2. Better Analytics for WordPress Get It Free

Is dmoz gives approve links?

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by grseo, Apr 4, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. #1
    Hi,

    I wondering "Is dmoz really continues give approve to different websites?"

    Each time I had submitted my site in dmoz with it's all terms and condition but I could not get any approve.
     
    grseo, Apr 4, 2009 IP
  2. jimnoble

    jimnoble Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,000
    Likes Received:
    123
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #2
    Why would you suggest it more than once? Doing so is against our submission guidelines and can cause extra work, thus slowing down the process for everybody.
     
    jimnoble, Apr 5, 2009 IP
  3. dan2008

    dan2008 Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    #3
    yes ,patient but how long? almost 1 year is enough?
     
    dan2008, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  4. makrhod

    makrhod Peon

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    29
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Please read the above posts and the many thousands of others in this forum and others.
    A volunteer will probably review your suggestion at some stage, but nobody knows when that will happen, because DMOZ is not a listing service, and reviewing suggestions is not a priority for volunteers.
     
    makrhod, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  5. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,333
    Likes Received:
    614
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #5
    Is not exactly volunteer work when senior editors charge between 100-150 dollars for each listing but on the other side those who pay only need to wait about 10 days. With so much money to make, it is no wonder some of "volunteers" have so much extra time to run around in different forums, posting the usual B.S. and trying to save the "value" of DMOZ link so they can still charge their high prices. ;)
     
    gworld, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  6. makrhod

    makrhod Peon

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    29
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    Blah blah blah. Same old conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence. Surely you must have other things you can post about by now?
    I have yet to see a single abuse report with all the details you claim to have, and not surprisingly those details seem to change every time you mention it.
    For the umpteenth time, if you have information, please report it. Otherwise for heaven's sake stop boring us all.
     
    makrhod, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  7. makrhod

    makrhod Peon

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    29
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    It seems Gworld's incessantly baseless accusations and strident paranoia got him banned again, so he's taken his rants and slander to other forums. Some people need to get a life. :(
     
    makrhod, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  8. Qryztufre

    Qryztufre Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Likes Received:
    491
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #8
    I actually find that strange. He HAS shown that people have posted on sites like scriptlance to get sites listed in the ODP and has shown that such posts have been COMPLETED. Yet HE is the one that is banned. Is anyone going to ever bother to prove that such transactions never took place?

    Proof beyond Scriptlance? I don't know... such transactions rarely have the URL listed... how is one supposed to report that?

    Baseless? Again, he's given at least something to back up his side... what has the ODP given to counter his claims? The guidelines of the ODP? *shrug*

    Someone emailed once with proof against what he's said... but such proof has never, to my knowledge been posted here. Even if it was, that would be one instance of how many completed transactions?

    I half expect to get an infraction for this post....

    (EDIT: I got red repped for trolling, lol)
     
    Qryztufre, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  9. makrhod

    makrhod Peon

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    29
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    So??
    As I have already pointed out, if some people are stupid enough to hand over money to someone based solely on what they claim on the internet, then more fool them! :rolleyes:

    Gullible fools are everywhere, but fortunately that has nothing at all to do with DMOZ, unless the people taking the money are editors.
    Exactly. Hence the pointlessness of claiming this is editorial abuse unless you have proof that an editor is involved.

    Huh??? :confused:
    He has said nothing of the sort! He's simply repeated over and over again what anyone can read for themselves on various sites, and without offering the smallest shred of evidence that ties any of it to DMOZ, despite endless invitations to provide the proof he claimed to have.

    Do I need to say it yet again?
    For the umpteenth plus one time, if anyone has any information proving editorial abuse please report it.

    If all you "know" is what you read from some unidentified person who provides no credentials, then consider how reliable that is likely to be. :rolleyes:
     
    makrhod, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  10. Qryztufre

    Qryztufre Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Likes Received:
    491
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #10
    You are correct, everyone on scriptlance is a crook and no one has ever had a completed transaction there. :rolleyes:

    By saying that none of the dozens and dozens of COMPLETED transactions on sites like that NEVER happened is saying a lot....and if ALL of those COMPLETED transactions (mind you, most with POSITIVE feedback) are all false or fake or and scams or whathave you, then, erm, thats still just as good as evidence as your side of the story. The guidelines are just that GUIDELINES not rules.

    Can I prove that any of the transactions ever actually resulted in an ODP listing? Certainly not... but can you honestly say that you can prove that all of them didn't? Thus far what has been laid on the table? A member here pointing to COMPLETED transactions for ODP listing, countered by a group of editors saying "If you have proof, submit an abuse report". *boggle*

    Come on, show me that each and every one of the scriptlance transactions are false... if it's fair to say I have to PROVE they did happen, equal proof should be in your court.

    You are half way there. You have the scriptlance site don't you? Finding out the links they are talking about should be simple enough for the mighty DMOZ meta team... they have special tools to help them weed out corruption do they not? I know I have no way of knowing what sites they are talking about...so how could I submit any further evidence other then the FACT that the transactions was completed for an ODP site listing and that it had POSITIVE feedback.

    It's really silly that thread after thread has dealt with this trash, and that thread after thread has been closed by Digital Point saying that proof of claims is needed. What more proof is actually needed? What can I show you that can prove such transactions actually have POSITIVE feedback? I mean, rummage through the COMPLETED transactions and compare the positive feedback with the negative. If people were seriously NOT getting a DMOZ listing, one would think that maybe they would not be so flippen chipper as to leave something positive to say... so seriously, I've done all I can do... now POOVE to me that all those transactions are fake.
     
    Qryztufre, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  11. HBIC

    HBIC Peon

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    Were I am living anybody is not guilty until proven otherwise.
    The accuser must prove that he is guilty.
    The person being accused has no need to prove he is not guilty.
    Indirect evidence is no prove.
    Hearsaying is no prove.
    Continously insisting that a person is guilty of something without prove is slander.
    I don't know if there have been editors involved in those scriptlane actions. And I don't care enough to investigate. I only know that I will never pay for something that I can get for free. I am not stupid. I suggested my site and maybe one day I will see it listed. That is good enough for me.

    I came here to learn something about DMOZ but the only thing I see is a continous argueing between the same people. I can't imagine that it will be of any use for both parties to continue this fight. For me there is no use to visit this part of Digital Point anymore. The same questions over and over again. The same people coming to a new thread to post about their own issues and forcing the thread off-topic. Like anybody else my time is limited and can better be spend somewhere else.
     
    HBIC, Apr 8, 2009 IP
    jimnoble and Anonymously like this.
  12. makrhod

    makrhod Peon

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    29
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    Of course that is not what I said. Please do not try to extrapolate my comments into something which fits your own view, simply because you do not have the necessary proof.
    It is very simple, but how many times do we have to repeat that anyone with actual evidence of editorial abuse is encouraged to report it.
    Posting vague allegations and insinuations is easy but completely pointless, so please actually report the evidence you claim to have, rather than slavishly repeating the insubstantial slander of proven fabricators.
     
    makrhod, Apr 8, 2009 IP
  13. Anonymously

    Anonymously Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    70
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    #13
    How can he offer any report when he has no evidence at all.
     
    Anonymously, Apr 8, 2009 IP
  14. Qryztufre

    Qryztufre Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Likes Received:
    491
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #14
    Circumstantial evidence is STILL evidence.

    Now show me that NONE of those are real, or acknowledge that some of them might be.

    I've already shown that there are COMPLETED transactions that have POSITIVE feedback. What have you shown to prove otherwise? NOTHING! So thanks for sharing...
     
    Qryztufre, Apr 8, 2009 IP
  15. Anonymously

    Anonymously Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    70
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    #15
    Any evidence you have just post here or report directly. But that will be none.
     
    Anonymously, Apr 8, 2009 IP
  16. makrhod

    makrhod Peon

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    29
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    And as I have repeatedly asked, do you know that any of these transactions resulted in a listing, let alone that they involved ODP editors?
    If you do know either of those things, then please include the details in your report, so action can be taken. Otherwise, what exactly are you claiming to know?

    All the transactions I have seen involve gullible webmasters paying people for something that is free: namely, suggesting their site to ODP. Anyone can do that, and if they are clever and lucky, they can get paid to do it. But that is completely unrelated to editors.
    So once again, if you ever do see a site being listed as a result of payment, please let us know (although we are bound to be way ahead of you LOL).

    It constantly astonishes me that people seem to be willing to hand over their money to someone with no credentials whatsoever, and who has absolutely no way of providing the service they offer. But as I also repeated, there's a fool born every minute.
     
    makrhod, Apr 9, 2009 IP
  17. Qryztufre

    Qryztufre Prominent Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Likes Received:
    491
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #17
    OK... I stand corrected, there is no evidence what-so-ever in a completed transaction for a dmoz listing with positive feedback, even though that positive feedback would and should imply that a listing within DMOZ actually happened, and happened with a money transaction. After all, you are way ahead of me in knowing what goes on with such things as external sites...

    As, your proof that those transactions didn't result in a listing far outweighs mine :rolleyes: It must make you proud that your word is more powerful proof then a completed transaction...

    Though, if you are way ahead of anyone submitting a report, why should anyone bother with the report at all? After all, it's clear that a completed transaction with positive feedback is certainly not enough evidence that any wrong doing is taking place...so with that, I'm really unsure as to what type of evidence that would be needed for action to be taken by the Meta team.
     
    Qryztufre, Apr 9, 2009 IP
  18. Anonymously

    Anonymously Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    70
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    #18
    With people easily able to gain multiple identities, as we have seen recently on here with a spate of new ids for trustnobodynever it is very easy for someone wishing to project a positive transaction to sucker other people in by being both the person offering and the person giving positive feedback. But don't let the traps that people set for the unwary stop you continuing to offer this as a reasonable transaction to help spring the trap. But you do seem to want to sell the services of these fraudsters very hard indeed, I wonder why?
     
    Anonymously, Apr 9, 2009 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.