What Google says the Value of a link from DMOZ is.

They are corrupt because they fit the definition of the word corruption.

They are supposed to treat affiliated sites the same as any other, correct?

Explain how a founding member has a site that had nearly 20 thousand deeplinks, most of which are duplicate content, that were all put there by a bot, and how that is NOT corruption. And just because the owners of the site did it, does not change the FACT those thousands of deep links break MULTIPLE guidelines, which is why it's considered corruption.

Skrenta & Topix, still leading the way in the corruption debate of the ODP and will, so long as said editor and sites are defended by editors.

Those deep links break everything you seemingly stand for... you tell people all the time to make sure they are suggesting unique and quality content, yet you claim it's NOT corruption for another editor to do add such trash? The guidelines themselves should be your standard, and you should hold that standard high in ALL cases, but Topix takes that standard, spits on it, then laughs at it... and you defend it being listed! So yes, corruption! If the shoe fits, wear it!

 

You once said that Jim used template answers. The same old old old chestnut, boring,boring.

 

Did I? No, I do not think I ever have. I have generally treated Jim with respect... I would call him out when I thought he was wrong of course, and have disagreed with many of his answers. But did i ever actually say that? Can you back that up?

 

I remember your comments about proof. Do I have to prove that. And you tell me I am trolling. ROFLAO

I thought this section was about DMOZ, perhaps it should be the Q section.

 

Ok, so what I should do the next time you ask for someone for proof after they may off base claims is to just point you to here. Because you hold others to a different standard... is that it?

 

Paranoid it applies to you then? If the "blanket" statement doesn't apply to you why are you so upset over it?

Or you just mad that DMOZ isn't relevant and hasn't been for years.

 

I just dont like idiots casting dispersion on hundreds of Editors, many that arent here to defend themselves. Anyone in any area that casts "blanket dispersions " is an idiot. There may well be a corrupt Editor....but that does not make DMOZ corrupt.

Its like saying all whites, or all blacks, are bad. Or all Christians, or all Muslims are bad.....just because some are terrorists. This simply isnt true.

Is the Catholic Church and the Priests ALL Paedophiles, because a number of Priests have been found involved in that? No.....

Blanket Dispersions about anything are bad.

 

People who make blanket statements like this are simply liars.

Ofcourse DMOZ is relevant, it is relevant to the hundreds of editors who thoroughly enjoy their hobby of collecting and collating data in this way and don't care a jot if it gives any value or none to any sites listed. As I have said many times before I would turn suggestions off and allow DMOZ editors to simply find their own sites. Save us having all the spam,the abuse from site owners and people like your good self. Sorry did you not get your spammy site listed or did you get booted as one of our few editors who did have a hand in the cookie jar? Maybe that's why you use the word corrupt about DMOZ, you have personal experience of, as I say, one of the few the rotten apples we discovered and booted. They usually come on here with all their personal bitterness.

 

also, as long as the link is 'follow' ..

 

Don't forget about the Boy Scouts too.

And I didn't say editors were corrupt, I said DMOZ itself is corrupt. So to go back to your analogy of the Catholic Church, is it not corrupt then because of all the cover ups that went on around child abuse?

 

Just like talking to a brick wall

Argue with yourself......i have better things to do

 

Dmoz is the best directory site for seo, but it is very difficult to get back links form dmoz

 

If you want to continue this stupid new spin that DMOZ is now a site for the editors to amass their collection of websites that is fine,
many of those sites in your "Collection" are provided by the people who submit them, so they feed your "hobby" so don't you think you owe them something in that regard? And if the answer is "no" then shut off the submission form of your hobby website and go find ALL the sites yourself.
Since you are so good at your "hobby"

 

If you are going to quote me then do it properly

Have you read my logs do you know how many sites I list and from where and if not just stop the bull and go take out your obvious anger somewhere else. It was not me that booted you.

 

Booted me? Booted me from where? DMOZ? I have never been a DMOZ editor.

So, back to shutting off submissions, we will put you in the YES column, now how many other Editors can we get on board?

Then we can get rid of that nasty "Search" function (why keep around something that no one uses except Web site owners to see if they got list) and we will have the DMOZ of my Dreams.

 

And as I told you, I am the President of the US.

I have been an editor for 10 years and never had any dreams about DMOZ, gee I should see a shrink if I were you.

 

Speaking of liars...

 

Sorry could not resist