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

I finally got in DMOZ.. Took about 2 weeks.

I'm still looking to see if it will help my rankings but for all the stuff I hear about how BAD the ODP and it's editors are, I haven't seen a problem with it yet.

Maybe that's because I'm not in a highly competitive market or perhaps I just ended up falling in the realm of a slow category with a really kind (and bored) editor

Who knows.. Point is, IMO, if you have a slightly decent site and it serves a purpose other than your own, you'll likely have no problems getting in.

It may not be popular here but frankly if you offer something that people will want, vs something you only want to rank high for, they might consider it and include it at a faster rate..

Then again, I'm a n00b... Take it for what it's worth..
My point in all this is that I read these boards after I opened my site and I was "afraid" to even try to get into the directory from all the horror stories I read here. Then I said "it's worth a shot" and did it.

So if there are any new webmasters that are possibly getting turned off from the stuff that you read, just submit and see what happens. Read their policy carefully and take note of where to submit, what to submit, and how.

 

Do you not know, Crowbar, gworld claims to be an editor 9 times over, with 9 editor accounts, and at least one of them is an editall. Sounds like trying to shoot ones self when you depracate the organization one thinks so highly of you want to join them 9 times and do enough editing to rise to editall rank.

So come on Mr Editall why don't you answer Ivan?

 

Good post, S3M1N0L3, , and you've got it right.

The most common, (legitimate) reason a site suggestion hasn't been listed yet, is just that an editor hasn't reviewed it yet. Way too many ghosts are being seen, where there are none.

Deleting what I consider unneccessary remarks by myself. (well, I am an editor)

 

What was the question?

 

Well that's pretty much why people want to get their sites listed there.

But IMO traffic should be more of a concern, and for those there's Yahoo and Business.com

 

you have been accused in this thread of having multiple dmoz editor accounts.

that, in dmoz's terms, is abuse and possibly corrupt.

that's a heavy thing to be accused of.

there are many, many calls here for alleged abusive behavior by dmoz editors to be publicly disclosed and discussed - rather than dealt with behind closed doors or ignored.

so you are in an ideal position to exemplify that approach:

simply reveal all necesary information here to allow all of us to arrive at the truth of the accussation.

that may put to rest several concerns about dmoz's operation that are aired regularly on digitalpoint.

so, the question for me is, will you please do that?

 

Are you on drugs? I haven't been accused of having multiple accounts, I have posted myself that I have different editor accounts.
If you have read the threads here, you would have known that I and DMOZ have different opinions about what is corruption and abuse.
Can you at least try to read the posts here in this forum before posting these type of nonsense?

 

Quite right old boy. You are a liar and proud of it. Sometimes you are male, sometimes your are female. Sometimes you are Canadian, sometimes you are an American. You always forget to mention your porno/discount pharmacy/escorts sites. Some times your speak English, other times your mother tongue. You are the BS master supreme and proud of it.

 

Describing DMOZ are you?

Male or female: Society: Transgendered: Support Groups
Canadian: Regional: North America: Canada
American: United States
Adult: Adult: Image Galleries
Pharmacy: Health: Pharmacy
Escorts (are listed here): Regional: Europe: United Kingdom: England: Hampshire: Alton: Business and Economy

Are you saying that his ethics are somehow worse then that of DMOZ? Or that him owning those makes him somehow worse then the editors that lists the very same sites?

 

That sucks, gworld, I demanded free password for at lest a month so that I can test before I pay and some free pills to make sure they are quality stuff! Have one of your girls deliver it all in person.

 

The post by dharmarucci seems perfectly reasonable.

From an editors point of view.

I would personally like to see many types of sites banned from the Directory altogether, but editors do have the personal option of leaving any site submission they come across, whether it's something they disapprove of or just a site that looks like it will be time consuming to wade through, to another editor to review.

From the Directory as a whole view.

We're a Directory, cataloging what's on the Internet, not the Internet police, or the moral police, or the shyster police. We don't investigate companies and make judgements about them, we investigate site suggestions, looking for unique content and making the judgement of where to place them in the Directory (if they meet our criteria).

We make no judgements about the web surfer and the type of information they're looking for, or the people who provide that information, that's beyond our scope, any more than the dictionary would ban certain objectionable words.

It's all about information, not moral judgements.

 

Honestly I have no real issues with the listings, or the cats I mentioned. While I do think that the adult area needs to be cleaned up from all the affiliate links and redirects (yeah, I know there are there, I once tried to use it as a resource ).

I do have a problem with supposed editors using the same thing that is listed in the directory to some how prove some higher moral ground then someone else.

The way I see it, if an editor has a problem with what sites someone owns, and they are an editor within a directory that lists the exact same things, then on some level they support the exact "filth" that they are trying to condemn. So maybe their attention should be turned around so that they can clean up their side before they point the same dirty finger.

 

I can agree with that. I get so sick of seeing the mud slinging and finger pointing, and I have to admit to indulging in it a little myself, but I try to stay above it and deal with information that will be helpful to someone.

Webmasters submit a ton of site suggestions to the Directory, so my own personal purpose for being here is to try to enlist the help of the honest webmasters/SEO people that are reading these threads, by giving them an honest inside glimpse of how we operate, and an opportunity to speed up the process for all of us.

Submitting to the correct category (instead of where they would prefer to be listed), and sending in a suggestion with an ODP compliant title and description, would save editors a ton of time and work, and speed things up tremendously.

Those are two areas that I think we could get together on and it would benefit everyone. There is a very large (and growing) webmaster industry out there that needs to be recognized and worked with in a partnership.

I'm just a minor editor, and I represent no one but myself, but sometimes if you want to improve something, you need to go talk to the janitor because he sees things that are overlooked at the top.

 

From your postings, which you invited people to read and then comment, I think your ideas about abuse and corruption are when your sites are not listed. It is not abuse and corrupt ,ofcourse, to tell lies to get editor accounts, that is perfectly moral and OK with you. So if your ideas are different and you see that as OK, then ODP sees corruption as telling lies to get any account but specailly telling lies to get multiple accounts.

Now let me figure which one most people would agree with?

 

It seems the price drop in DMOZ links has upset you so much that you don't make sense anymore. Even the "glorious leaders" have started editing in other places, so they can make a buck. Are they seeing the writing on the wall? Decreasing importance of DMOZ and decrease of profitability of editors' one page affiliate "web sites", decrease in "SEO work" (AKA selling links in DMOZ) payments.

 

Accusations again, innuendo again, you are getting to be more boring every day. At least find something new to try and smear the directory with.

If you won't answer the question I left hanging, I think people can clearly see how honest, reliable and trustworthy you have behaved and are likely therefore to believe all that babble you keep spouting.

 

Are you suffering from a degenerative disease? Seems that you are getting denser by the day.

I'll try and explain it in a way that even you will understand. When you applied you were honest in saying who you were, and what your affiliation to the hocus pocus categories were. Gworld’s application(s) are lies and deception. His affiliations to the sites like I mentioned are ignored. He is proud of the fact he is liar.

I am not criticizing the categories but rather the deception and cheating.

Do you get it now or do you need a diagram?

 

LOL. You have to lie in order to infiltrate the Mafia.

 

So long as we all know that you are a self confessed liar, we then all know how to treat your posts.

 

I likely need a diagram. How can you use his sites as a jumping point to the rest of his character when those same sites are in the ODP? What he has listed as his affiliates is not the point of the deception, it's whether or not he listed them.

Can I ask if you now have Digital Point listed in your list. You are after all a contributing member to this site now

Paradox?

If one has to lie to get into the Mafia, and he claims to be in the Mafia, do we believe him or call him a liar? Or do we believe the anonymously posting editor that denies his membership?