Page 3 - Is there a trick?

Yes he did, he made the sweeping judgement that any investigation by a Dmoz editor must therefore be correct.


I think name calling has been going on for some time in this thread. You only need to look at Fathom's user feedback lately to see how he's been abusing a few people.


As I said, why I bother to do so here I'm not sure, but the site in question was refused for not having original content - more like it was in competition with the editor's site.


Now come on, you cannot be that naive? Maybe you are, I don't know.

I didn't get that opinion from reading his post...






If you feel a member is abusing the reputation system you need to contact a mod about this...
As far as the name calling goes I made the comment in a "sweeping" motion as you say which includes any participants in this thread.




Okay and? Everyone knows Dmoz is a hard directory to get in, they have hard rules and one of them is to have unique content... so your answer is right there, whether you think the editor was biased or not matters not as we have already established lack of content and that in my mind is a justified reason for disapproving the listing.




Why don't you register IHateDmoz.com and educate us... we don't want to be naive

Let me spell this out so there is absouletely no ambiguity.

I'll assist anyone...

I'll teach anyone...

I'll discuss with anyone...

I'll debate with anyone...

...and I'll disagree with anyone... and for all of these the worse a member will get from me is a disagree 0 comment.

I reserve "negative rep" for those that actually deserve it...

JakeCop you "ABUSE YOUR POSTING PRIVILEGES" -- YOU THINK IT'S OK TO POST HEARSAY, INNUENDO, HALF-TRUTHS, AND DOWN-RIGHTS LIES -- YOU BELIEVE THIS IS THE PERFECT VENUE FOR SUCH THINGS -- AND YOU THINK YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!

WELL - YOU CAN... BUT DON'T EXPECT ANY FAVORS FROM A PERSON THAT YOU PUBLICLY CALLED "CORRUPT" and instead of apologizing, retracting your statement, admitting to error you offer...



Your next -16 rep will be for that post.

It's my way of saying to the membership in its totality... "don't lend any weight to what JakeCop says".

...of course you could edit that post, turn it into a public apology to all dmoz editors... you just may convince me that you are sincerely attempting to be honest and truthful... I do tend to respond in kind.

Apologise for calling you and Dmoz corrupt? Why would I do that? http://www.joostdevalk.nl/the-dmoz-mob-strikes-again/

Seems this one's gaining steam.

No?



Seems like you just did get that opinion. Again, you haven't seen the site. You've merely made up your mind based on the rules as quoted by an editor. You don't know what the site is...


Then why did you aim it ONLY at me? You didn't mention any of the other posters in this thread who made village idiot remarks. Any reason your comments were not aimed at them?

I wonder.


I don't have the time, and Dmoz isn't worth the effort. I think the bad stink following Dmoz round the last few hours will sufficiently educate a few naive people.

Okay uh post the site then... we are waiting.




I told you it was aimed at the whole thread and I intend to enforce that... I don't want to discuss this any further in this thread, if you feel unjustly treated or feel I was wrong I am open to discuss it in PM.

The site was WhatDVD.Net - and had previously existed in the Dmoz directory as dvd.ugo.com before UGO decided to use another provider for DVD reviews, and redirected the domain to their new site.

The offshoot site, WhatDVD, which had thousands of reviews was refused for having no reviews. dvd.ugo.com has different content from a different provider.

Incidentally the site looked quite different back then too.


Don't discuss it any further then - the post speaks for itself.

Looks like a MFA site to me... I probably wouldn't have approved it either

Cmon guys lets have some peace and harmony here! Drinks are on me ;)

Ho ho ho, funny guy. Google likes it, very much

thousands of reviews, and was refused for lack of content. As I said. Looked different back then too. Check the Internet Archive if you really want.

Here's a stab... but first...



What was the official "abuse" in your estimation?

Well, considering the site was listed under a different URL before the URL was moved to another website, and considering it did have the content to be listed...

For it to be refused for the reason that 'it didn't have any content' was clearly inaccurate. As mentioned before, this was some time ago and Visio's ill-considered comment of it being an MFA site isn't relevant. It was created before Adsense, and has content.

Again though I don't actually care anymore, Dmoz is so worthless now being listed in there has no real effect that can't be achieved elsewhere, far more easily, and dare I say for some... cheaper.