Page 4 - Is there a trick?

That's the kind of insight no one at Dmoz has ever offered. A few more explanations like that and you may actually start to change people's minds.

So it's been flagged as something that should never be included? With no reason, and a meta asks the question why as well?

Can't say I'm surprised, as there is no reason.

I have no qualms about declaring now that I don't want it included anymore. The site being in Dmoz would lend undeserved credibility to Dmoz, and the sites it currently lists in my place highlight the poor quality of the directory.

So please, don't go any further with it. I don't want it in there.

A logical subposition - the editor not believing your version of events (what happen to the orginal domain... surely there isn't no easy way for an editor to prove your word) and sees you as the owner of 2 fractal domains (similiar but not identical)... the red note in this instance would signify not to list the second domain because the first is listed.

I "STRONGLY SUGGEST" that you review your domain yourself before I do... fix any broken url, missing images, script error, and if what Visio noted is the general 'jest of the domain' to do lots of editing yourself.

When I do this it won't be "half ***" - I'll be recommending:

1. the note removal "because..."

or

2. offering an editor note for inclusion to explain the red note.

There's no chance of anyone thinking I had two URLs, as dvd.ugo.com now forwards to: http://www.ugo.com/dvd/ - which blatantly isn't mine and is different from WhatDVD.

I won't be editing WhatDVD, it is what it is. Visio's comment was ill thought out as MFA sites don't have original content.

If you want to look at it, feel free, but I genuinely don't want it listed in Dmoz. The revolution starts here.

Your admission here is the only direct association between the domains... and as near as I can tell http://www.ugo.com/ isn't listed and doesn't appear to have ever been listed [please note the crash washed away all comments...] so as of today... dmoz has never heard of http://www.ugo.com/ (or the sub-directory).

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=ugo.com

And just for the record, dvd.ugo.com was run by me, using what is now WhatDVD as you can see here: http://web.archive.org/web/20031206220646/http://dvd.ugo.com/ until December 2003.

Seems the editor for http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Movies/Home_Video/DVD/Reviews/ changed the listing UGO's DVD channel from dvd.ugo.com to www.ugo.com/channels/dvd sometime after, as it switched on the site earlier this year. Maybe UGO have a Dmoz editor among their ranks, might explain the 63 Dmoz listings they have?

Jake has had a point (albeit poorly made and far too ascerbic to be taken at face value). DMOZ continues its tradition of the "black box" model dispite claims that it's a "community". You're not really part of the community unless you're an editor. Furthermore, you play by the nebulous rules. Did you know that by helping Jake like this you can be banned as an editor? It's happened before. Best hope nobody goes on a witch hunt for your daring to reveal some of the inner workings of DMOZ.

Ironically, in that thread, the banned editor (who did nothing more than you're doing now) was called "corrupt" by another editor for violating the rules. Oh, and no, I do not think you're corrupt, fathom.

Posted Yesturday by Randfish:



You're suggesting that I'm planning on asking Jake for some kind of listing reward for listing him... about the only reward I get is 0 negative rep.

If you read read Randfish's public comments his version of being helpful is violating the guidelines.... and he really wasn't "helping" but it does make for a great dmoz scandal thread to stir the pot.

I'm sure if you ask for his precise "processes for being helpful" and he disclosed these based on his high integrity... you will find that he wasn't acting in the spirit of opd. (he was acting on his own set of rules and for monetary gains -- e.g. client fees).

In any case get your facts straight before you post so you don't look like an idoit attempting to spread half-truths!

Wow, talk about a stretch. Where did I mention anything about money or payment? Furthermore, I wasn't accusing you of anything! I watched the whole Rand thing with some interest and my whole point was Rand made some helpful posts to people asking for info and was raked over the coals by people who felt he was "violating the spirit" of the rules. I never saw him ask for money at any point on these forums or anywhere else and if you read your own quote of his he's saying some other editors have accepted payment and this, in his view, DMOZ was little more than Yahoo. Keep in mind he's accused them of far worse (and he's hardly alone).

The point I was making is that he was banned largely for helping people by posting information on what was going on with certain submissions, just as you're doing now. And if you think they won't ban you for the same reasons... well, more power to you. In return, all you've done is tossed out insults and handed out negative rep.

Nope. He was banned for corrupt practices.

You are in error... while the actual reason for his lost privileges was never made public (nor to him) ... it is quite apparent from his subsequent comments that his actions were based on favoring his commercial interests... instead of obeying the ODP guidelines.

He may indeed have helped many people as I try to do.. to 'educate' for better listing examples consistent with the guidelines... but he didn't lose his privileges because of those helpful actions.

No one ever wishes to accept or admit to wrong doing... so they "spin it" a certain way... and it doesn't feel like lying and you can gain tons of support...

So to recap:

In 2005 Randfish reported the standard DMOZ notice:



and added "I was only being helpful" and can't anymore and garnered great support from SEOCHat members...

to note later in the thread:



and then just yesturday quoted that he brides other editors in 2005 and 2006 to list his clients and that was an acceptable practice "In HIS OPINION"...

which we can now conclude that his privileges were revoked for:



Isn't it good to see how thing come full circle!