More fun with DMOZ.

It seems after showing the falsehood of sidjf and lmocr claims, they have run back to DMOZ where a meta is giving them shit about being too slow for listing 3 new doorway pages for a site that has already have 5 such listing.

I suppose this is one way to get around the abuse system when later on everyone can "see" that is different editors who are adding multiple doorway pages for the same domain.

 

Or we're tired of repeating ourselves? Wonder which might be the correct reason?

Come on gworld - an editor can check any other editor's edit history - it's not nice to lie in public.

 

How is this related to what I posted?

Any comments on brizzie and other editors posting here? Can it be you and sidjf are only one who have understanding of this strange translation of guideline which is behind comprehension of honest editors?

 

There is a difference between understanding what the Adult guidelines say is allowed and understanding why they say it and why it hasn't been put right without coming to uncomfortable conclusions. Because an editor understands the what doesn't mean they support it and it shouldn't be automatically assumed that by explaining it they support it either.

 

Even if we assume that DMOZ guideline is a two edged sword that can cut both way, for or against corruption, for a life of me I can not understand, why a honest person should always argue for the side that permits corruption.
I don't think any editor who has participated in this discussion can claim lack of knowledge or understanding about the real purpose of such listings and while ignorance or mistakes are some what understandable, the willful support of such practices are not.

 

HMM Thats odd because I have been told by a couple of Dmoz editors that I spammed my site, but yet I have had my site submitted only 2 times that I am aware of, both by ex webmasters. Now explain that as spam but see Dmoz cant because they know with the bafflegab, to coin minstrels phrase, they use would be exposed as nothing but lies.

The primary problem with this is that most webmasters dont understand real estate and therefore dont know the difference between a real estate agent/Realtor or a real estate team/ company. The point I am trying to make is that the webmasters who submit their clients sites have no clue as to the category because they just dont understand the ins and outs of the real estate industry. Dmoz in their guidelines I believe fail to explain the differences.

To use a good example, someone who is very successful as a real estate webmaster, Seo Guy, until myself and another Realtor came on as clients of his, he had no clue about real estate, we had to teach him everything he knew in the beginning. Real estate is complex and even if you are a seasoned webmaster submitting sites to Dmoz sometimes selecting the right category can be tough if you are not in this business.

 

If we all saw the same thing and perceived it in the same way there would be no wars.

 

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html - I've never had any problem with them. A professional web designer should make a point of understanding (a) their client's profession, and (b) the rules relating to their clients' sites when submitting to directories and search engines. Break the rules of any directory or search engine and none of them will be sympathetic.

That, to be honest, is the fault of the webmaster, and their clients for trusting them with promoting their sites when they haven't got a clue. I expect my accountant to know how to do my tax return and if he doesn't I am the one responsible for picking someone incompetent.

 

I do agree with you but one issue I would point out is the fact that if the clients had a clue about what task a webmaster has to perform, they would have no need for a webmaster. I am a good example, 3 years ago I didnt know what PR was or anything else. I would not have been able to submit a site to Dmoz or didnt even know what Dmoz was. Now that is a different story, but because of my lack of knowledge then should I be punished by Dmoz for my webmasters past actions when so many others who abuse the system are not. I am not just applying this to me it goes for others who have experienced the same problems.

As Dmoz states all webmasters are spammers or become part of the fold as an editor.

 

I know someone who was doing renovations, and hired a totally incompetant plumber - who violated a lot of plumbing codes. The city made him tear out all the work and get another plumber to do it over. Now that's totally unfair.

But in the end it was the householders responsibility to do the work to ensure that the plumber was qualified. Or at least to set up a legal contact that would have let him sue the plumber.

 

Well I don’t know your case and I won't try to speculate. All I know is that submitting 2 times to ODP is not spam. You can read that several times in RZ by many editors if you want. Especially if you submit to the same category. It just overwrites the first and nobody even knows you submitted it twice.
It just moves it to the bottom of the pile if the editor sorts by date.

Unfortunately the answer is yes. You gave the webmaster authority to do so. It is not a punishment, only the result of unwanted sites in a particular directory. Believe me, I know where you are coming from. I find it very unfortunate that a site owner's site is unwittingly delisted from a directory because of the ignorance of a hired hand. But the guidelines are very clear on the matter so it behooves the webmaster not to understand the most basic of them.

 

No, you in reality dont give these webmasters the aurthority to do any of this stuff. Webmasters do what they think is best for your site, most dont even converse with the client before doing it. Most webmasters tell their clients I am going to submit your site to several directories or I am going to purchase links for your site to help it gain backlinks, this will cost you XX dollars and will help your site rank. Clients are very rarely involved with which directories or other techniques their webmasters will use.

Its just like a lot of Realtors in the real estate industry. Have you ever purchased a home through a Realtor and give that Realtor certain criteria you want, only to have that real estate agent show you things that either dont meet your criteria or go beyond your price, the reasoning behind this is that these real estate agents are showing you what they like, not what you recommended you would like to see. The same principle applies to some webmasters you hire.

As a noob and since you hired a webmaster you as the client dont know any better, if you did, you wouldnt need a webmaster. I believe the real issue is with Dmoz, their guidelines are vague on a few issues and so ambiguous that they can be twisted by any editor wishing to decline/approve a listing.

The moral of the story is, not everything is as it seems and sometimes you have to use common sense and sound judgement when making a decision to approve or decline a listing.

 

As I mentioned previously, I can understand the difference of opinion, misunderstanding or mistakes but can you explain for me how can someone try to justify these multiple listings of this garbage by comparing it to listings from CNN and BBC?

What are the best know porn brands that you see everyday their magazines in the supermarket or their program listings on cable TV?

Playboy
Penthouse
Hustler

Playboy with all it's magazines, stores and TV programs have 8 while penthouse and hustler have 1 each, in the mean time unknown companies with no content of their own have hundreds of listings.
Do you really mean to say that editors who defend such listings is because of they perceive the reality differently?

 

I think they preceive their bank accounts differently based on the inclusion of those extra listings.

 

I understand what you are saying. But in the end, it is still falls on the shoulders of the site owner who hired the webmaster, SEO company, or whoever. It may be unfortunate, but just a fact of life. I know. I've been there too. An editor can't take time to find out what the intentions of any particular site owner is. That is unreasonable. How would he/she even begin to know? All they know is what is submitted to ODP. Even when I find a site that is obviously spamming the directory, I dont necessarily delist the true main site. In fact im not sure I ever have. I just delete the spammy, mirror, affiliate junk.

Well, that could be done a few times but much more than that, they would get caught. I don’t believe the guidelines are vague. But that’s just me.

 

Since it is obvious that the 35 listings that I mentioned in the beginning of this thread is just affiliate junk, would you please delete it?

 

I do not edit there

 

Not everyone looking down on dmoz is a disgruntled webmaster. Some people just wouldn't want to be associated with it due to its now infamous reputation. It stands to reason, that if it continues with this infamy, then

will become true.

Over and over again, life shows us that to move forward change is required, even if we don't always like the change.

There's not much value in dmoz, that I can see, unless someone was wanting to place lots of doorways to their porn site.

 

Considering that is has no value, it's amazing how much energy is spent here posting about it.

The demise of DMOZ has been predicted for years, but it does seem to keep plodding along. It may not last, but it will be around for a few more years at least.

The reality is that the vast majority of people and companies and webmasters do not even know it exists, so they could care less if they are associated with it.

There are three kinds of people in the World

1. Those who do not know the DMOZ exists
   
2. Those that are obsessive compulsive editors - they will keep DMOZ running
   
3. Those that are obsessive compulsive haters - that will keep posting on the "I hate DMOZ threads"

If you really want to make a difference don't waste your time posting here, get Google to drop DMOZ. LOL.

 

Believe me, if we (and I suspect many DMOZ editors) COULD do that, we would do that.

In the meantime, as long as we're stuck with DMOZ, we may as well try to encourage those in the inner circle to clean it up a bit. And it appears that the pressure of negative publicity does have some impact on DMOZ editors and admins, although certain editors continue to do their best to deny it. Indeed, on certain issues, it seems to be the only way to push for change, even for editors.

So perhaps it's not the waste of time you make it out to be?