Is DMOZ still a good SEO option, or will it someday soon be a "Bad Neighborhood"?

I had same opinion until I got removed and realized that to some freaks DMOZ is much more then hobby and without it they would spend rest of their lives in minstrel office.

There is always room for "yes" people and DMOZ seems to prefer such editors.

Hope you'll still be laughing when you get removed for annoying some meta.

Yes that is why everything metas do is top secret and nobody can't know anything they've done... sounds like mafia.

Yeah, they remove people just for fun of it...

Foot soldiers are usually used as canon fodder I should know that since I run wargaming/military history website.

 

He/she is afraid of ex-editors death squads which are constantly searching for identity of senior editors to abduct them take them to water and replace them with aliens who want to take over the world, unfortunately senior editors have so far eluded us.

 

I can't speak for any other editor in here, but, you'll notice that several of us are unafraid to use our real editor names, and I would think you'd believe what a real, varifiable editor has to say, over any unproven person who claims to be an editor offering favoritism for money.

I suppose it's a matter of what you want to believe, rather than the actual accuracy of the information, but you do great disservice to your fellow webmasters by spreading such rumors about roughly 7,000 of us.

Because such attempts are dealt with quickly and harshly, and a novice webmaster would hold this forum in high esteem and believe what he/she reads here, and find out too late that it's false information.

No proof of any kind, just innuendo, from people who perhaps might have gotten caught with their hand in the cookie jar, or who might be bitter because they either haven't been listed yet, or they own the type of site that we will never list. I'm saying might because I'm making no unproven accusations about anyone in here.

What amazes me is that if one of you actually knew a legitimate editor who was corrupt, and could get your sites listed for a price, good grief, why would you ever say so in an open forum?

I would think you'd want to keep your mouth shut and use his services to the max, eh? So, that alone, shows that your information is false, and worse yet, that you know it's false.

 

OK, are you promoting keeping our mouths shut if we are asked for money? It does sound like it, and that's simply wrong on many levels.

By your logic, there are loads of corrupt editors, and that the people that do use them just remain silent, and that's how you like it.

And then other editors wonder why people say there is corruption...you are feeding the speculation!

 

I use my real name and surname (not nickname) everywhere on the net so you can easily discover everything there is about me. OTOH there are plenty "editors" here claiming that they are hiding their identity since they don't want to receive threats - did you ever get threat from angry webmaster? I never did while I was editor...

What rumors? That metas are removing editors is absolute secret and never reveal a reason and don't have answer to anyone that is the fact not a rumor.

And where is the proof? We are suppose to believe what you say based on what? Your not even a meta and they can't reveal anything since that violates communication guidelines. So metas can't disclose anything and we are suppose to believe that weapons of mass destruction really exist?

No some of us are bitter because they wasted their time on project which is a big fat lie, it is not run by global community of volunteer editors instead it is private company run by meta oligarchs.

So what you are saying that there are no corrupt editors but editors are getting removed for corruption quickly???

 

Well even after all those you listed above people still are dying to get dmoz links because they know what difference a dmoz listing can make to their rankings in google.

 

Actually, no I haven't. Any correspondance I've recieved has been very polite, . There might have been one, but I don't remember any of the details, so it couldn't have been too bad.

No, that you can buy a listing and that editors are corrupt. What happens with a removed editor is between the editor and the meta community, and is no business of anyone else.

True, I'm a very minor editor, and I serve there at the discretion of the Directory. If I'm removed for cause, no public trial or "proof" will be neccessary, I'll leave quietly and find something else to do with my free time.

If an editor has added only one site, then he has added value to the Directory that wasn't there before, so it's not wasted time. There are no perfect systems that everyone is in agreement with, but when an editor volunteers, they agree to work within the system as it exists. Anyone who is unhappy with it is free to unvolunteer, , and go their merry way.

No, I'm saying you know of no such editor yourselves, or you would keep quiet about them and happily use them or if you were honest and despised them, you'd show us the proof so we could deal with them. We'd be very grateful to have that information, if any of you can provide it.

I have a strange feeling that no such proof will be showing up. Am I wrong?

 

Oh yes, now I remember. Two individuals offered me a bribe through PMs, one of them mentioned a webmaster forum post, but they didn't say which forum it was. Those two, and one other were immediately banned from the Directory.

By immediate, I mean the offers were immediately passed along to the meta community and they took action.

It wasn't a threat, just a slap in the face.

I seriously feel sorry for new webmasters and beginning SEO people because they come here expecting credible advice, and instead, they get misinformation that could cause them to be banned from the Directory.

 

Competes_with_A: Submits siteB to DMOZ, no listing as of yet
Competes_with_B: Submits siteA to DMOZ, no listing as of yet
Competes_with_A: *ponders* If I can't get siteB listed, I'll get siteA to be unlistable too!
Competes_with_A: Offers bribe of siteA to get an ODP listing
MetaCommunity: *bans siteA*
RandomEditor: Finally gets around to looking in the category for siteB and lists it.
Competes_with_A: YAY 4 meh listin!
Competes_with_B: *wonders why site never gets listed*

My condolences to siteA for the fast action of the Meta Community.

I wonder just how many sites have been banned due to the fast action that takes place after a bribe that never actually made a bribe themselves. It's a slap in the face alright...but just how many innocent faces have been slapped?

 

You guys get real wild with your imaginations, I think, . (Somebody else offered the bribe in my name, to get me banned)

I'm not a meta, so I don't know how they do things (which I'm sure you boys are just dying to know for your own reasons), but, I have great confidence in their abilities and their integrity.

I actually know many of them, so I think I have a little better knowledge of their characters than you might have. Some of them have had to slap me up alongside the noggin, and gently advise me at times, but it was to help me, not hurt me.

You guys keep grasping at every little straw you can to put your own twist on it, and I keep knockin em down with the truth.

For anybody reading this thread, I have nothing to gain by lying. I don't hate anybody here, I don't have to be here, I'm probably not wanted here, and I'm just sharing some of the limited knowledge I have by giving you some truth to work with. I think you can read the honesty in my words.

You want us to be more open and transparent, so that's what I'm trying to give you, within reason. There really are no big secrets, but you can't expect us to just spill our guts either, as some would like us to do.

I came here on my own, to help you understand the Directory a little better, and it's like walking a tightrope. If I overstep my bounds, I'll be gone as an editor, as I should be. But, I think I know where the lines are after 6 years of editing.

 

The only truth I've seen as of late is that one can get a competing site from getting listed by offering a bribe. I'm not grasping at straws, just calling it as it's laid out, as you have laid it out.

It's certainly obvious that DMOZ has a ZERO tolerance about bribes, but the question remains, just how much goes into the investigation of such reports?

I hear that the meta community has "tools" but there are no tools that can truly say which sites I own, as there are tools to hide or alter my identity. So, short of a court order, there is no way for DMOZ to accurately say who owns what in ever case, opening the door to possible scams by competing sites.

 

That would be a line I would not cross, even if I knew the answer, and for obvious reasons, it's an answer that would benefit some greatly.

Unfortunately, my own opinion is that that is exactly what is meant by more transparency, "Give us your methods, so we can figure out how to get past them." What other purpose would you need that kind of information for.

That kind of information is off the table, and I won't even discuss it.

 

And since metas do not discussion their decision with anyone that isn't meta and especially with editor which is about to be removed and never bother to reply or reveal reason for removal, removed editors is abandoned by everyone... as I have said, really cool community for masochists.

Can we test that? Can some meta please remove crowbar and leave him in the dark to think why was he removed.

Problem is system is a LIE! To get editors to join it claims to be run by global community of volunteer editors, but it is missing meta before editors since normal editors have very little influence on how things are run, and have to get meta approval for everything they do in DMOZ, there are no strict rules and standards in DMOZ only very vague guidelines which can be interpreted any way like so you can easily use them as excuses to remove anyone for anything.

My websites biggest competitor is wikipeda so listing in DMOZ won't help as long as Google is ridiculously inflating wiki rank even for blank pages so I never bother with such things... you have to ask gworld about that.

Surprisingly wiki has website blacklist is public and anyone can ask how their website got on it and some end up there by mistake and are removed form it.

At DMOZ you got no idea if domain has been red tagged so you can buy some cool domain and create great website only to find out later that all this time you have been branded as criminal by all mighty metas.

 

Let us structure your post.

1) You are a minor editor who knows nothing about inner working of DMOZ

2) You don't know how Metas discover corruption or how they deal with it or how they remove editors or for what reason

3) Despite not knowing anything, you have full confidence in them and you believe anything they say and you don't even want to ask them why they have done something.

4) Even without any knowledge, you think you should come here and make accusations that people who don't agree with Metas, must be crooks who are caught with their hands in cookie jar, or are bitter because they can't get their site listed.

Let's summarize your advice for present or future editors:

Never question or doubt Metas, always say yes and praise them and attack anyone who questions them.

 

I love your sense of humor, Ivan. But, it might surprise you to know that I would not object to that test. I believe I've done over 25,000 edits, roughly, and I think that's a good accomplishment, and I do have other things I could be spending my time on, lol.

Yes, well the vague guidelines aren't always hard and fast rules because it's edited by humans and we're given the discretion to use our judgement (within reason) and the Directory is a live growing entity that expands and contracts as the need arises.

This does confound webmasters a bit, because unlike a predictable machine, which could be worked to ones advantage, humans are totally unpredictable (present company excluded), .

Page rank is something no editor ever considers or sees, all sites are equal, only unique content on a site is important to us.

As my wife tells her students, " I don't give you grades, you get the grade you earn." I suppose she means they should take personal responsibility for what they recieve, and not blame it on someone else.

 

In school you know why you get F and can even ask teacher how to fix it and can always check your grades, at DMOZ you can get F and never know about it and can't even check to see if you have one. Good things schools aren't run like DMOZ or it would be real disaster.

 

If you don't want to get F, just do as crowbar suggested:

"Never question or doubt Metas, always say yes and praise them and attack anyone who questions them."

 

I'd say that's a little skewed, but fairly accurate, gworld. I think anyone who reads what I've actually said (in context) will see the difference. Keep twisting those straws though.

It must be terrible to be so consumed with hate for an organization of volunteers that you'd go to such great lengths to demean them at every opportunity. It's not healthy. Have all your sites been banned or what?

 

What difference is that?

At least your actions are in accordance with your own advice (point 4), attack those who questions DMOZ "senior" editors.

 

I was just curious, it really isn't any of my business, and I wouldn't think you were out of line for saying so.

Attack? If you think I've been attacking anyone, I apologize.