Page 4 - Is Dmoz still corrupt?

I thought I would had more seeing as the first two examples somehow did not qualify my comment:

Here are two more that do not even require an explanation:

http: //members.tripod.com/~brianbailey/new_index.html
http: //aquaweb.pair.com/

This one does not exist:
http: //www.efishtank.com/

This site is basically the same as http: //www.aquariumfish.net/pages/information.htm :
http: //www.petfishtalk.com/home.htm

Here is one that is a reasonable forum however there are many better, why was this included and not other forums (kind of out of place here)?
http: //groups.msn.com/Breedingtropicalfish/

Here is a so so one with old dated information:
http:// fins.actwin.com/

To keep thing even here are a couple excellent sites:
http: //www.gpavlineris.com/id28.htm
http: //www.fishtanksandponds.info/
And here is a dated, however still useful site:
http: //faq.thekrib.com/

And this is an excellent directory, however in the wrong category:
http: //www.fishlinkcentral.com/

And here is a ho hum site:
http: //www.myfishtank.net/

This brings it to 10 out of 23 sites that are questionable, poor, or even do not exsist

The problem is: these are not observations of corruption as you suggest but example of less capable domains, obsolete domains, and lack of direct category editing.

Your domain you suggest is so much better (and that indeed may be true) but lack of direct editing also denotes 'no new listings cause no one to list'.

You could apply for the category and help out but before you consider that... if the only reason you want to become an editor is "to list your website" your application will not have an easy pass.

Nonetheless - no corruption as I can see... thanks for the example though it helps perspective.

That is a good point, I probably should not have used the word corruption, but I do see major problems. I am still unclear why this cannot be rectified?



Your right, that would be a conflict of interest, I guess I would like to see those handling this section check into it and not blow off good sites, leave poor or non existent sites.
If I also recall at least one of the poor site sites is new which also leaves me with questions.

That's not what I said.

Professionals from every industry edit in opd. An attorney in a legal category would make for a better category editor than a postal clerk that watches LA Law reruns and Judge Judy.

Just because you also have a commercial interest in a topic does not mean you can't be "objective".

Sorry, I did not mean to take you out of context.

Then Why would i have a hard time as you said since I misunderstood you?

Many people think the purpose of dmoz is to provide "a link"... these are the same people dmoz doesn't need.

Putting in an editor application is no different than applying for any other job... if you're not really interested -- the review body can sniff that out pretty quickly.

That part I understood, but this certainly clarifies your point.

I realized this with my first application the DMOZ was a "Human Edited Directory" and my personal desire originally was for this very reason, credibility.

Personally I would not apply for something I would not or could not do right (Which is why I left a management job when I first moved from my original business to Oregon, upper management treated employees like cattle and I would have no part in this).
Anyway, a little off subject there; currently the "would" is there for me, however the "could" is not do to personal obligations so I applying on my part would be wrong at this particular time.

You're a Dmoz editor? Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.






And there's that corruption we all know so well.

Good work again there from Fathom, states openly that someone who disagrees with him on a forum has no chance of being listed, then hits someone with a -16 rep for pointing it out.

Good work buddy, power corrupts and all that. Good job Dmoz is disappearing into a pile of its own self importance. Its corrupt, arrogant editors that have caused its demise.

Poetic justice?

Negative rep supports negative comments... "always look at the bright side though... your brilliant red" but ssssh... don't tell everyone they'll all want some!

Cors it's negative, you've left me all you have whenever I disagree with you. Typical Dmoz editor. Use the worthless authority you have in your own e-Kingdom to promote your own self importance.

The fact you openly told someone they have no chance of being listed when they disagreed with you merely illustrates yours, and Dmoz' corrupted nature.

Well, it's your palace. Let in who you like and ban who you like. It's the Dmoz way.

You're @ SEOCHat mate! Get a grip.