In an effort to take some of the personal asepct of this out of the discussion, I would like to return this point you made, and my question as to how you believe that doing this would make any more sites get listed, or make the directory any better at all. Thanks.
Hey hey hey!!! Leave poor Hodged out of it. And besides, how do you know your bed would fare any better if Hodged was bouncing up and down on it with a closet full of people and underwear on his foot?
I think DMOZ has lots of issues, and I don't know that it serves any significant purpose in the universe, but you are whack.
Of course, that's how it works We will all become more and more alike over time. Have you noticed Nintendo has been absent? I bet Hodgy gave him some tips on how to get chicks
Allegedly. I wasn't there, of course, so we only have his story to go on. Although, reportedly, Crazy_Rob was in the closet with the sailors and the chimpanzees...
Yes it will. What purpose do a volunteer serve listing one site in one year? If that volunteer resigns, atleast some other editor will take up that position and do the best. This is where i suggested earlier some possible solutions. Volunteering is good, but let there be some new policies on volunteering. Let there be some minimum number of sites that an editor must review/edit within a period of time. I have heard many familiar responses for the above suggestion.
Its means the directory has grown by one site more than it would have without that editor!!! What is actually wrong with that?
To address this - there are no limits to the number of editors for a specific category - if that one editor resigns, that one edit that editor would have made might never happen. There is.
So Sarahk answers some of the points brought up in this thread, gets attacked for it, and that attack gets repeated as an abuse accusation (with names, etc) over in the Resource Zone by this person. Classy way to have a public debate in my opinion.
I am still waiting for a reply to the simple question i put. If Sergei Brinn became the editor of the search engines category would it be wrong of him to place the best search engine in the world (Google) in the cat if it wasn't already there, or remove it if it was as he has an affiliation with it. I guess the question was too difficult for some
i havent really read the thread, but looking at the title, my suggestion would be "stop worrying about dmoz"
OWG, I missed your post. Here is my response. Submitting once own website is not wrong. What is wrong is, getting that submission more privillege than any other submission in that category. Look at this waitakere-bmx.com is owned and run by sarah the ODP editor. This domain name was bought in aug 2005. Site went live by sept 2005. DMOZ listed before OCT 16th. Why don't you think, i should be frustrated? Thanks
Post on resource-zone was a complaint. I have put several questions to sarah. She got personal, much more than i did. She attacked on my profile, greecard, brought BUSH in the topic. waitakere-bmx.com is owned and run by sarah the ODP editor. This domain name was bought in aug 2005. Site went live by sept 2005. DMOZ listed before OCT 16th. My un-answered questions were, Who submitted this site? Who reviewed it? Why did it get listed so fast?
I would rather they cull out the 5 listings in the category that went away or the other 5 that got scooped up by the same owner who already has 5 listings in the category, all re-directed to one page. The net effect of this single listing is still a significantly less useful resource. If only a minimal amount of effort and energy are to be applied, it is probably better spent to maintaining what is there instead of just adding another site that is likely to disappear over the next two years.
I had a site listed within hours..I would cut your losses and run Sridhar. You look more and more ignorant the more you badger Sarah who is actually a good person. You really have some anger issues you may want to deal with first