What kind of websites are accepted by DMOZ?

Nobody has said that....many editors have sites. I have 4-5 sites, but only one is compliant with dmoz guidelines and currently in dmoz. Many editors are also webmasters, as long as the sites are declared and they are not unfairly promoted, it is not an issue.

 

Hi,

Most revelence category is accepted by the DMOZ,
also proper meta in Site

Thanks'

 

When you say "also proper meta in Site", do you mean it's a good idea to hire a metaeditor for your site?

 

You said that you do not know how Google rankings work, yet now you say you have 5 websites of your own. That is very suspicious. A person with 5 websites that does not know how search engines rank sites is either lying or has these websites because they want to fill up their time.

 

And how you gonna know any of that unless you have some people who do the job on the site, with or without websites?

I think snooks has taken this point up, but just in case you still labour under the missaprehension that someone has said that there are no webmasters at DMOZ, can you just point me to the thread.

You are at liberty to believe or not that I do not have a web site, it just happens to be the truth. I did have one, but did not have the time to maintain it, I spent all my spare time editing!

 

I didnt say i didnt know how Google rankings work

I said i know very little about how Google rankings work. Thats a big difference. I also meant in regards to Google using dmoz data, not so much just general seo stuff.

I have a very basic knowledge of seo but thats about all.

 

I will not argue with you anymore because it is pointless. I really do not care if my website gets listed or not in DMOZ. I just hope that Google will soon lower the importance of DMOZ so that people are not taking advantage of its high PR. DMOZ only contains a tiny portion of the Web and some very poor quality websites considering their content and design, and as such, Google should know better and stop using DMOZ as their primary directory.

 

Google did not ask us to produce a directory for them to use.
Google did not ask us before they used our directory, its free to download for everyone giving correct attribution, that's why it is called 'open'
Nothing to do with us, and they take it as it is, we have no intention of changing the directory because Google chose to use it.
If you have a complaint about how influential we are then please direct it to them, we cannot make them stop using it, they have a right under our licence.
But no one has the right to ask us to change because of a choice that Google made.

 

In my personal opinion there are just a few editors left and the load of submission can't be handled. I have a website that could be easily listed because of its content, in comparison to those already listed in that category, but no one can even come close to updating that category. Pathetic.

 

whats the category???

 

It's a regional travel guides category.

 

Well. It can be explained by the lack of editors or by the refusal to list competitive sites.

 

I thought you were an editor popotalk, so you should have all the inside information.

 

What would that prove? You know that as an editor he would not be allowed to talk about what is written internally, as it would be a violation of the confidentiality guidelines

Besides, if you really were an editor you would have known that...

 

Then why did popotalk post great tracts of internal forums when an editor had been booted?

 

simple... he got an email from the editor named Revr, just like I did.