Getting Listed in DMOZ. Can anybody help?

Suggestion to the "most appropriate" category is probably the most important thing.......it saves time moving, relocation etc.

 

Indeed! I stand corrected!

At one point it was perfectly normal and well within the guidelines to deeplink syndicated content that had no unique content by any and all editors, as that is what the foundation of the ODP is!

is that what you are saying here? It certainly looks like it!

And that even now, there is no editor with access that cares enough for the end user to remove a handful of sites that consistently break the current ruleset set forth by the editing community.

Great points, great points indeed!

Both say a LOT about the ODP as a whole.

And snooks.... are you saying that it's OK for say, the paster of a church to go around getting hookers and doing drugs and breaking the ten commandments all willy-nilly? that the leaders of a community should not lead by example, follow their own rules, and keep the end user in mind themselves?

Again, says a LOT about the ODP as a whole. If the top is corrupt, why should ANYONE ever trust anything that any other editor there says? There is no transparancy, what there is is open out and out corruption and rule breaking from the VERY TOP that is then weakly justified by the lower flocks of sheep like yourself that back up their rule breaking and say that breaking rules is perfectly fine...

Again... your arguments are very valid, but also make the ODP look like a bunch of rule breakers!

 

RAFLMAO......Man, you have a serious mental health issue Q. You really are getting worse.

What im saying is that if a Pastor in a church used the services of a hooker....as you said........What the hell has that got to do with YOU? Mind your own business and stop bleating about it on forums cause its got nothing to do with you.

You really are one sick puppie, we arent helping anyone so i think i will depart this thread

 

OK, I am a sick puppy because I am against breaking rules... but what does your support of rule breakers say about you?

As for me getting worse, I have maintained this stance before I was even an editor the first time... what is getting worse is your ability to defend those that break the guidelines.

 

Sites which break guidelines are removed and some sites listed would not now be listed, not just those.You see Q it is called seeding and we would not do that now.Some sites were multiple listed and they keep that listing, yes it is unique content, but we would list those sites differently. I have participated in debates which decide what we are going to do with some of those early listings, some have got changed some left as they are. I would point some out but then you will just have another stick to try and beat DMOZ with. But in reality your silly twisting and bringing up old rubbish just makes it obvious to other readers here that the chip on your shoulder is massive and that you are pickled in your own vitriol to spend so much time posting about a directory that you have no more interest in after being an editor for 5 seconds many moons ago and proves just how sad you are.

Not sure when you were an editor for the second time, it would appear once for a very very brief period was enough for DMOZ, who refused your return for a second time.

 

And again, you are defending Topix, which breaks multiple rules... its NOT rubbish, and the only reason it's "old" is because the editing community allows those pages that break multiple guidelines to stay.

I used to complain about the dead CNN links, complained for months, but they got removed, and I stopped pointing to them. And there were THOUSANDS of them. THOUSANDS! Not listed in a single relevant category, but spread through deeper and deeper categories. That is well outside the norm when following the guidelines. As is the Topix listings which remain.

So I am NOT beating a dead horse here, the horse is still very much alive. With 17033 deep links to a single site, you gunna try to tell me thats a DEAD HORSE yet still say the ODP is not DEAD when other people claim it is?

So again, its not old rubbish... rubbish maybe, but it's only rubbish because that trash is still listed!


So yeah, call me sad... but at least I have morals and ethics and do not defend and promote a site and/or group that supports breaking rules. I would rather be sad than evil any day!

 

I'm not defending the worth of Topix and I usually delete unjustified listings when I stumble across them. However, I do defend the right of one commercial organisation (AOL) to do a deal with another one (Topix). That the founder of both DMOZ and Topix happened to have an editor account at the time is entirely irrelevant.

None of this is news to Q because it's been explained to him several times previously. Neither is any of this relevant to the ethics, morals or effectiveness of the organisation and its volunteer editors. Frankly, it's weird to try to make such a connection.

Give it a rest Q and quit trying to wind up editors with your mischievous silliness. Have you nothing more productive to do with your idealistic life?

 

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

Conflicts of Interest

The Open Directory prides itself on being a free, non-commercial and open resource for the Web community. Selecting, evaluating, describing, and organizing all web sites fairly and equitably are key components of the editing process. We rely on the philanthropy of our volunteer editors, and strongly discourage anyone from accepting or soliciting any form of compensation for their participation in the Open Directory. Additionally, we discourage submitters from soliciting or bribing editors in exchange for listings in the directory. Editors found to be accepting or soliciting bribes in exchange for listing sites or unfairly promoting these sites over others will be removed from the directory.

DMOZ is non-commercial.

In some cases, an editor's business affiliation overlaps their involvement in the directory, such as with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals and Professional Content Providers (PCPs), whose participation may benefit both the editor and the directory. Instances when the involvement is mutually beneficial are acceptable, however, the primary focus and goal should always be to serve the best interests of the ODP and the editing community. Conducting unfair and deceptive activities to promote and support client listings will result in removal of editing privileges.

And again, haviing bot listed sites that clearly put Topix above any other site within the directory clearly violate that last bit on affiliated sites.

So yeah, silly aint I... ya know, expecting the ODP to follow it's own guidelines.

Indeed! Its completely crazy to think that an organization that breaks it's own guidelines isn't full of employees (or volunteers) that follow them.

I mean toss that whole LEAD BY EXAMPLE thing out the window right? Rubbish! lol

You volunteer to the ODP how you see fit, and so will I. Because together, I am sure we will make DMOZ the best it can be!

 

But all this defending Topix brings us back to the original post within the thread...

Topix can have almost 20 thousand deep links to syndicated content in thousands of categories, but this guy can't get four related sites with original content added because he owns them and the topics are all related to dating and he is the one that suggested them.

It really all becomes clear now does it not?

It also goes to show that the guidelines are a complete and total farce, and that editors are not there for the end user, rather they are their for the betterment of their own. As count the editors saying this guy can't get his sites listed that each fit better into the guidelines then that of Topix.

 

Nope. Your writhings and twisted logic simply show that your grasp on reality is a tad loose.

Perhaps you could show me where I said that DMOZ is commercial. It's AOL, it's top level owners, who are (or would like to be).

 

Oh, well yeah, that makes sense... thanks for clearing that up.

I wonder how many other links AOL sells on the ODP, which would keep AOL commercial, but not DMOZ.... right? Is it really any wonder that the wait time for a non-paying site suggester is years, while at the same time, AOL can sell links to anyone they deem fit. Its really becoming clearer and clearer... that the owners are above the rules, because they wrote them, so it's perfectly fine for them to break them. Crystal Clear!

By selling a link on the ODP it makes the ODP itself a commercial site, by definition... at least by any standards outside of the editing community.

 

You are a joke,Q,I am sure you bring great laughter to many others as well as myself. But do be careful if you stress out over other sites that YOU advise people "to forget to submit" to,which shows how high you hold DMOZ then you are heading for a near heart attack.

I dread to think what you would do if a directory that you did value,or any other site that might hold value in your eyes,did something you disliked, disagreed with or in the case of DMOZ refused to hear what you were been told. It might be a good idea to warn the local ambulance service if you find a site you value more than DMOZ and you have made your views very clear on DMOZ,that does not do as you want it to do.

But if you find the perfect directory, don't apply to be an editor , you will spoil it.

Have a few more puffs,breathe gently, calm yourself and then let it go,it is only a directory that once you were an editor of but chose to resign.

But just to get this back on track either buy DMOZ or wait for a site to be reviewed by an editor there is no other way of getting a listing and if you do find a rotten apple editor and get a site listed by paying, believe we shall find them and the editor and the site will be gone for good.

 

Well sadly thanks to editors like you that choose to not use the suggestion pool as a tool to find sites makes that mantra apply to a good majority of the ODP.

So me actually saying what YOU DO IN PRACTICE makes me the bad guy? lol, try again!

I spoke my mind on the internal forum while an editor, and was told that I was a digital point troll. And who was saying that? An admin!

And what did I do? Quoted the guidelines and asked about them...

By treating it FAR FAR FAR better than the one you are a part of!

Because I would treat ALL sites equally, and not favor certain ones over others.
Because I would make the end user come first.
Because I would can people like you that hide behind a false name and treat everyone like trash. You do far more harm to the ODP then I ever have.

So yes, I would spoil it

Because change for the better will never happen right? Because DMOZ is failing, but according to you they have never been better?

If you are looking for a rotten apple editor, contact AOL itself, they thrive on such things, as they are above their own rules!

 

how do i know if the site that i've submitted to DMOZ already approved aside from email?

 

You will see it in the listings. If it isnt there its probably awaiting review or has been rejected.

 

i see, that's why our site still not visible in DMOZ, another question, what if the site was rejected can you still send it for reconsideration?

 

What would be the point of that? If it's not listable, it's not listable and you're just wasting your time and our scarce resources. You can check listability for yourself here.

 

The helpful answer would be to quote what has been said in the past is that you only get one bite at the apple and if you are rejected you have ZERO chance to be listed.
Even if you completely re-do the site, have a professional designer, are listed in every search engine as a site of authority, also if the domain name changes hands and an all new site is created, forget it, you got rejected you aren't getting in.

Oh and by the way, why waste this persons time? Jorgepson, you have no way of knowing if you were rejected, you have no way to know if you were reviewed, you have no way to know if you will ever be reviewed, why are you wasting your time with DMOZ?

 

Too late he has submitted already....and once is enough. Designed websites cut no ice with DMOZ, so long as it works, don't bother enlisting a top designer just for a DMOZ listing you are wasting your money. If it has been rejected it is because it did not meet up to guidelines, not nearly there but just did not meet them, very often, though not exclusively because the content was not unique. If you met up with guidelines and Jim pointed you to them, then the site simply will wait till an editor VOLUNTEERS to look at that section and use suggestions as their data.

But it is a curio of great magnitude that some one, like joeventura spends a good deal of time on this section of DP, dedicated to a website that he tells people to ignore!!! What sort of brightspark would do that? When you have worked that out then you can see how much, or indeed little, weight to give to his answers or better titled puerile comments, emanating from him being steeped in his own vitriol.

 

Yes the Internet has no place for people who point out things that have no value, that would be like a ohhh what is the word..... a REVIEW!, or an Advocate.
Someone should come up with a website where they find out what consumers want and write reviews, diatribes and have discussions on those things. Like a Report for Consumers.......

NAH no one would want that!