Page 6 - Shutdown DMOZ

This is certainly a good point, however most everywhere I have read is that their sites were listed in less than 6 months, so I should be in Q. Also my category is not at all crowded, so even if I am at the bottom of the list, my last submission was last year.

I wish I had saved where I got this advice, but if memory serves me correctly, it was a couple of Google Wemaster groups I used to frequent back in 2004-05.

no

...what editors?

...what's there job?

...and get yourself on the board of directory over at Google... then you can vote for what you want.

OK???

This is a very strange answer.
Why is this my job?
They make the claims as to their search integrity; not I. Google makes the claims as to their Adsense integrity, not I.
Yes we have to do our part in making our site available, but I do claim to be a SEARCH engine (keyword search, not find the site with the most adwords that may have one keyword, regardless of whether it is plagiarized or not)

But what is really troubling to me now, is this is almost the exact answer I got from children's services when asking them to do the right thing after several reports to them about my kids after my daughter’s molester was trying to turn the tables by redirecting this corrupt organization against me.

What a sad world we live in when this is the answer to doing what is right.

1. I don't have a job with DMOZ... I volunteer to edit. The rule states and is automatically enforced that I must login once in 4 months and make an edit.

That might seem like a very low rate to you but you don't even do that so your opinion is moot. I do alot more than that and other editors volunteer 40+ works per week... but that is not mandated - "we volunteer".

2.I'm sure if you had a better directory example for Google they might jump ship... but Google isn't interested in how long it takes to be included... it only cares that it has a directory style resource that isn't self-serving to the owners... full of useful websites ... and for the most part that's DMOZ.

3....since AdSense ad isn't a ranking creiteria I hope we can agree that isn't why it ranls.



...you see parallels?

Whether or not your personal affairs are true, fabricated, or drop dead lies... you allegedly have absolutely no direct or immediate knowledge of corrupt or unfair practices in DMOZ... what's more... you allegedly didn't write any report and send it to DMOZ for review and action... you merely casted self-serving judgments to support your claims and hit the public airwaves to drive support for your cause.

In this context, I find it difficult to believe your are a victim... in either circle.

What a sad and wrong judgmental statement!!

I never made one accusation against you personally, yet you choose to make vile statements

I too volunteer in a few Aquarium Groups, where I obviously get more respect than from you. The time I spend solving others problems is in the dozens of hours per month.

I ONLY commented as to what I know to be true, not other aspects of DMOZ.

As to Adsense, I never stated that it was a ranking criterion.

I will also admit I likely do not know even 25% what you know as to SEO, but I do know is the Aquarium/Pond business.
In just the last week, in a forum that I am a moderator I along with another moderator could not figure out where one member was getting all her BS facts until we both dug deeper and realized she only searched Google. We both suggested she use MSN or Yahoo (I prefer Yahoo, the other moderator prefers MSN), either way the searches in these two gives up better information (at least in my field of knowledge).

My only critique of DMOZ, is that I am constantly trying to counter misinformation that is so common in my line of work and as long as Google gives weight to DMOZ, I think it is imperative to try and get information to inform persons to counter this.

As a moderator in other forums, I find it sad that SEO allows your nasty (if not borderline evil attacks on me based on your final comment) to go on.
Where is the moderation here???????

Yes where is it. You made up allegations of corruption and did not provide one shread of evidence. Why do you find it acceptable that you can make up stuff, yet think there should be moderation when editors repsond to your made up stuff.

It is sad... and you did make an accusation agsinst me [every editor in fact]

"Who "precisely" are you accusing then - if not me?

"What "precisely" did they [them. we, us, someone, anyone, you don't really care who all you want is your listing - so you need to blame some nameless person] do?

My statements are vile? I only regurgitated your paralleling filth.

You chose your molestation dialog as corroborating support for dmoz not listing you... you are a very troubled person.

The editors in the Aquarium/pets category



I am not the one making comments as to time spent volunteering, getting a job with Google, otherwise my opinions are useless



Wrong again, this only was to point out how many choose to respond to ignore others unless there is s benefit to them. You could look into this problem, but choose not to (which of coarse is your right and I do not expect this either)

Again, calling a person troubled is making blanket statements, without anything to back this up, along with your in essence calling me a liar.
If you think so much, maybe I will use your nasty lines too; why do you not look up more to back you what I am saying?
And since you have also chosen to call me a liar in an ongoing evil chapter of my life (and daughters of which this person once again sent death threats to harm her and my wife), why do you not check police records?

All I was doing was equating the non response of many to wrongs that are committed (often in the corporate world to my own personal life)

From Martin Niemöller:
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Finally if I was "accusing everyone" as you stated, why would I have made this statement several posts back:
"My point is unfortunately Google gives weight to DMOZ, and even though many editors may well be good, honest persons, I know from my past three years of submissions that this is not true based on what I do know to be true."?

That's your point? REALLY?

That's how your point starts but that isn't really your point... Google gives weight to DMOZ listings {YOUR POINT IS SO MUCH MORE} and you're not included and because your not included someone must be neglecting to do their job because if they were doing their job they would see that your domain is "top rated," "accurate," and "up-to-date"... and superior in every way to all the lame *** domains that are listed which are "inaccurate," and "sadly out-of-date".

...and because of these insightful and unbias points... DMOZ editors must be "corrupt".

I reviewed your domain status in DMOZ... no one has deleted it, edited it, moved it... and no one ever needs to... an editor can use submissions by the public or find their own... according to dmoz rules...

If you have any evidence of editor abuse report it here... http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

That said: pretending that someone is stifling your commercial value to Google isn't accurate... show Meta Edtors that and it will be dealth with -- but dmoz as a whole doesn't care who ranks in Google... you do... thus you are likely the corrupt one.

I have a problem wth people twisting what they know to be true to support their cause.

I have a problem with people that have an agenda other than what they say in their posts.

I have serious problem with people that think claiming something is the same as proving something.

Defending your position based on suspicious and assumptions doesn't make for a great view...

...and it's your view we are debating here... not mine.

...so long as you keep spouting your self-serving lies [that what I call accusations without facts]... I'll debunk them.