Page 3 - Is Dmoz still corrupt?

Please Fathom, stay in context. Your version of "my words" was not true to the original. And "my words" were just variations or direct quotes of several posters' sentiments about how DMOZ operates, including my own.



Thats quite an impressive word for a dmoz editor peddaling dating affiliate links while touting elitist rhetoric about the "quality of the web" and how it hinges on the "human edited" listings of hypocritical editors trying to get high rankings and PR for their dating websites. There's certainly not enough spam like that in GGls index already, I'm glad DMOZ is there to keep the bar high.

The purpose of my post was to defend the act of submitting to DMOZ once every 10 months as reasonable, contrary to your excessive use of the word "rubbish" - And I didn't so much "attack" DMOZ as agree with the many people who feel they have abused their power.



Apparantly, you're in greater need of checking your facts, as I already presented references, and you haven't showed me any concrete backup for what you are saying (and your the one who works there?)

You might want to ease off of screaming "rubbish" at everyone who disagrees with you, especially when they can present verifiable information that refutes your claims.

And who said anything about having it both ways? Your welcome to free service, just sign up and make the appropriate number of referrals, very simple. No argument here about that.

1) In any of your categories? Exactly.
2) Had I asked you for it, "or still cared" as I mentioned the first time, your comment may have actually stung a bit.

...and as such so were my words. You have a odd way of thinking that something you do nothing for owes you something.



You sound as if someone pissed in your beer and you got a mouthful of warm froth.

Lighten up - no wonder every website sucks but your own.

If you got a submarine for commerical tours you'll be in immediately.

Wasn't saying they owe me a listing, but a straighforward policy and "professional courtesy" would be nice. Hasn't been my experience as of yet. And I volunteered to edit at one point, ergo, the effort to do something for them.


Happily no - I just cracked a fresh one, which is nice and cold, and so far, piss-free.

Its a "Full Sail" Pale Ale - undoubtedly a beer someone named Fathom might appreciate.


I'm thinking this beer may help with that. Not being called an Oxymoron is often good too.

Oh, well that makes it pretty straightforward then. Will PM you when the site is ready to submit.

I was using the word used in this thread, maybe gazzahks more PC terminology is better, however I was only throwing ONE piece of the puzzle to this conclusion. Again Gazzahk and others have added many more pieces to this conclusion.

Needless to say I know my business very well and can state quite "matter of factly" that many in my field that are approved are anecdotal snake oil sites which is unfortunately very common in the aquarium industry.
To be even more blunt, I stayed away from the Internet side of this business despite many who thought I should get into it to share some of my experience, but I was unimpressed by what I saw. Later personal family issues forced me here dealing with trying to get my message across past the anecdotal sites, directories and aquatic forums and worse.

I stand by my comment!

I did NOT call YOU corrupt, rather the system. Heck I know many good people who work for otherwise corrupt companies, that does not make them corrupt. But based on what I read and what my own experience and knowledge is and has been I do not think that was out of line based on the context of this thread.
BTW, I did not start this thread, I only added my two cents and would not have even used the word corrupt, but that what was chosen, yet you chose me to attack on this issue; Interesting, I have always VERY much respected your knowledge of SEO and what I have read from your profile (which is imressive), but based on this response and others I have seen from you I have to wonder why you are so ready to attack me and others?

The "system" which you claim is corrupt you have never seen nor have access nor ever been privy to.

Your two cents is based on forklore, half-truths, "a friend of John's bother-in-law's cousin knew of a girl that was Bill's ex-girlfriend who was at the top of DMOZ and she said...."

You think I attacked you?

Mate I want to know what you know... I want to find this "corruption", expose it for what it is and stamp it out... so post your evidence and we can begin to do some good...

But if all you are going to do here is spout opd myths, dogma and hearsay - what possible help are your posts?

Have you noticed that in this thread and many others, despite many requests, they never come up with the goods!.....don't figure?

You make some good points, however I disagree on your comment about “my two cents’. Quite the opposite, yes I will grant you what I have heard and read from others I cannot back up. But what I know about what constitute accurate aquatic information is NOT folklore, much of what is circulated on the internet including in DMOZ listings is, so your statement may be accurate as to my believing others but is way off base on what I know and have spent 40 years of my life in and continue to research and discuss with others in the industry.

The final comment is fair, so here goes too examples of listed sites:

http: //www.aquariumfish.net/pages/information.htm
Mostly advertisements. Mostly anecdotal statements. Look at Bio Wheels page section #5, the information provided there is anecdotal and not based in scientific research.

http: //www.angelfire.com/az3/tropicalaquarium/
Very old and no real information, look at the disease page, there is no information to be had. Last update 2002

Even some of the better sites are very basic information that can be found any where, and is meant to sell the reader a book that may or may not contain accurate information.

There are more examples, and I will dig deeper if you would like later, but even if these were the only two cases of poor listings it is a sad statement that my information site(s) have been ignored. Considering what I have seen in aquatic internet forums and the intellectual dishonesty in many, what else am I to believe when I see this and read others statements that there is some sort of lock out of sites that do not fit the mold of pc aquatic information?

Just did!