Page 2 - Shutdown DMOZ

That's exactly the point, HOW can we prove it?

I've submitted to DMOZ 5 or 6 times over the last few years. I never get a response, I never get listed, I never get anything.

All of my sites meet the DMOZ guidelines posted on the site.

There are thousands of other people in the same situation as myself, such as the original starter of this thread.

What proof is there to provide? We suggest the URL's, get denied with no rhyme or reason, and never receive any correspondence.

I never said the whole organization was morally gifted and a divine inspiration like yourself.



Corrupt - point them out and provide the support evidence to back up your claim and I'll forward it on to those "that will deal with it"... if you evidence is merely your commercial aspirations to be listed [and not] that isn't evidence.

Deadbeat - all editors that don't login and edit at least once in 4 months lose their privileges... since all categories can have more than 1 editor - you can get involved... and as newbies must start at the category bottom surely the task load wouldn't be too difficult for you since you claim many editors are deadbeats... why not show them how you can be a "non-deadbeat".

From my vantagepoint - anyone that claims corruption and won't get involved to curb that corruptions and claims many others are deadbeats and still won't get involved to show a how a superb voluntary editor does it... but sits on the sidelines and drips about their own commercial "corrupt reasons" is worse than anyone that did get involved and has a personal agenda...

Worse still... you knowingly hide the details of corrupt editors from those that can actually do something aboiut it. WHY?

Or maybe your claimed statements are just colorful rhetoric.



Whether true or untrue how is that any difficult from a non-editor just wanting to get their own site listed?

If you have supportive evidence that an editor is deleting your submissions without review... that's cause for their removal... but it isn't cause for your inclusion.

Editing is very much a "personal preference thing"... so long as they remain within the guidelines... how is that corrupt?



...just because someone [few, some, many, most or everyone] you don't know, got accepted to be involved, and edited at voluntary level that is pretty much up to them [up to four months anyway], and that interfers with your commercial gains, you think someone [few, some, many, most or everyone] might have done something; you never seen, that has a negative impact on you... but you have zero evidence of that [we'll call this a hunch] ...this is the bases for your corrupt opinion... do I have that right?

That's Seinfeld material! ...you could have won a grammy for that stuff.

Instead of laboring over stuff you can't prove "OVER & OVER again"... become an editor and you can see it from the other side... then you'll either be corrupt or not... but the one thing I know for sure... "bad editors don't go very far"... this isn't to say that a bad editor can't become a top Meta... but you gotta spend alot of time fooling alot of people... and do alot of "GREAT EDITS" before you get a chance to do BAD ONES.

1) Never claimed to be "morally gifted or a divine inspiration". If you notice in my first post I simply stated my opinion, and then recommended that the original poster spend his time being more productive than worrying about a DMOZ link.
2) Like I said, there is no way to point out a corrupt DMOZ editor. A declined listing never gets any type of correspondence on why they were declined. We don't know who declined it. We have NO info whatsoever. So you tell me, how do I point them out?
3) I don't want to get involved and become an editor. I shouldn't have to be an editor to get an inclusion. There are many other ways I can spend that time to be productive.
4) How do I knowingly hide details about corrupt editors? I don't even know who the editors are!
5) I refuse to argue this point with you further, the conversation is pointless. I'm sure you and thousands of others are just peachy with the DMOZ system. For every one of you that is happy, there is someone else that is not. Do a search for "DMOZ Corruption" there are just over 50,000 results. Obviously I'm not the only one that feels this way. I'm sure we are all just making it up.

Thanks for the debate, but I'm done now.

Ya I saw that... good advice.



hmmm... how do you know it was 'declined?'

It's worth noting that all editors must post why they are deleting a submission... you can't delete just because you don't like a site... and if the reason in invalid the listing is put back in unreview.

A editor doesn't need to review 'unreview quene' BUT if they intend to get another category they really have little choice - if you don't have the time for 1 cat unreviews - a 2nd one is also too much.

Some lisbale problems could be... I have 1 listing in my unreview quene that's been there for a year... they won't remove the "under construction" signs -- thus it's unlistable - but I review it each month...

...if you have a bunch of dead links - that isn't listable.

From your eariler post:



What's quality?



what spammy?



Ads are ok -- they can't be the primary topic of the site.



Why do you want in DMOZ if you're already top... this isn't a listing requirement.



not overly objective... a marketing pitch - not a requirement to be listed...



hmmm... why would anyone research you... surely you meant "anyone researching the industry would find 100's of 3rd party reviews stating that we are a leader in the industry... shows these -- from government agencies, NFP agencies, industry associations... I guarantee 100% you'd be in DMOZ years ago.



Amazing how that works - you have a commercial reason for wanting a DMOZ listing - so someone else with a commercial reason must be preventing it... obviously you are a wee bit bias...

Obviously:



how do you know it was "declined'? Someone would need to tell you that... wouldn't they... or are you saying that your guesses are obviously 100% correct 100% of the time.




Sure... and no editor should need to defend their voluntary actions to someone outside of their voluntary organization.



Ya - broad and vague corruption claims are worthy of your time.



You're absolutely sure that's why you're not listed.



I can see why it's pointless to you... you have no invested interest...



Course you review them all to determine their accuracy right... oh I forgot, you're not interested in accuracy... so long as it can bolster you "opnion".



It wasn't a debate... your "opinion" was purely based on rumor and conjecture... but you're right... you need to quit!

DMOZ is ok, my site got listed after waiting 3 months

I submitted my site to DMOZ over a year ago and nothin..... I even wanted to volunteer and take care of a section within the directory.. but still nothing. I don't knw what these guys are doing back there.

duh? Every time you have submitted you have just overwritten your previous submission with the new date and if the editor sorts the pool of sites by date (most do), you just keep moving yourself to the bottom!.

YOU are the reason that your site has not been reviewed! ....

BTW: how do you think any directory should treat those who deliberatly break the guidelines?

Listing ~1000 sites a day, making it the fasted growing directory on the www

Did you actually look at any of the search results? Did you not notice the almost all provide no evidence. The extent of DMOZ corruption is just another SEO forum urban myth that you have chosen to just repeat, without backing your claim, so you just added to the 50 000 results!

I guess it easy for a webmaster to claim that DMOZ is corrupt when there site is:
1) provides no unique content to add value to a category so its simply not listable (commenst reason for rejection)
2) still waiting for review (the most common reason a site is not listed) (DMOZ is not a listing service, so your expectations need to be lowered)(editor do not even have to look at the pool of suggested sites when looking for sites to add)
3) guidelines are deliberatly broken (like you did with the repeated submission)

Dmoz is corrupt!. If I can't get my site listed after several attempts, then it is bias.
Would you believe that the site was listed for eight years and now not even after several attempts. SIte is a familly themed. All guidelines followed.
IF Google uses DMOZ for listings, every site should be listed with the exception of damageing content to minors.
Need to charge a fee to accomplish this task, and actually give a hair of customer service, then do it.

DMOZ should be a PR0 banned directory of no value to anyone.