DMOZ editor wants $300 to list my site

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by SPC2

There's a huge backlog - last I heard it was way over a million. I know that some editors have redefined the concept so that submitted sites are not there to be reviewed. Instead they are just a pool of sites that can be dipped into as an editor wishes. But that's only some editors. The DMOZ site talks about the backlog of submitted sites, and that's good enough for me ;)

Whatever makes you feel good. :-)

Originally Posted by SPC2

Btw, don't get on the *suggested* thing. The DMOZ site talks about "submitting sites", so they are both valid words to use.

I've used them interchangably, too. The fact still remains that editors do not, if they don't want to, have to look at suggested sites. I'm one of those that choose not to, so the "backlog" is of no concern to me. But, it only makes sense that it would be of concern to people who are trying to get listed (and before you say anything, I'm only talking about the people who are trying to get listed and complain about how long it takes).

[SPC2]

I've never had an experience anything like that with the post-Google search engines. Give me an example of a searchterm that you used, please.

I almost always find what I'm looking for on the first page, and usually in the top few results.

Anyway, we've strayed off-topic here, and to get back...

It's utterly unscrupulous for an editor of a free directory to write to a submitter and say, thank you for submitting your site - the speed it will take to list it depends on how much you are willing to pay. For that category, DMOZ became a paid listing service for a while. Utterly unscrupulous.

[The Old Sarge]

Originally Posted by janeth

I guess thats why DMOZ gets so much more traffic then Google?

Lol

Ever heard of advertising? Self-promotion? Google does a lot of both.

When was the last time you saw a promo or ad for DMOZ?

I guess that might explain the usage level, huh?

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by dogluver

I've used them interchangably, too. The fact still remains that editors do not, if they don't want to, have to look at suggested sites. I'm one of those that choose not to, so the "backlog" is of no concern to me. But, it only makes sense that it would be of concern to people who are trying to get listed (and before you say anything, I'm only talking about the people who are trying to get listed and complain about how long it takes).

To be honest, I've no time for people who feel that they >>>MUST<<< be listed, and moan like hell when they aren't, or when they have to wait forever. DMOZ started out trying to catalogue the Web, but that was never possible, and so it became a directory of selected, quality sites (which is actually better than the orginal aim) - and that's fair enough. I often defend DMOZ against the knockers, but I also talk realistically about it, as I did in that article.

[The Old Sarge]

Besides, when has DMOZ even made the claim that your site has to be listed to rank in the SEs?

When did DOMZ ever claim to list, edit and maintain the directory for the benefit of the SEs?

I think you'll find the SEs latched on to DMOZ without any prompting from DMOZ. ... because it was, and remains a very good, comprehensive directory. That's why so many SEs, large and small, list certain results directly from DMOZ ... format and all.

Face it. DMOZ is relevant. If it weren't, Google and the other SEs would ignore it, right?

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by The Old Sarge

Ever heard of advertising? Self-promotion? Google does a lot of both.

When was the last time you saw a promo or ad for DMOZ?

I guess that might explain the usage level, huh?

Not in my opinion. I put it down to the fact that people prefer the speed, quality, and quantity of the big engines.

[The Old Sarge]

Originally Posted by SPC2

Not in my opinion. I put it down to the fact that people prefer the speed, quality, and quantity of the big engines.

Well ... that too. lol

But do you at least see my point?

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by The Old Sarge

Face it. DMOZ is relevant. If it weren't, Google and the other SEs would ignore it, right?

Again, not in my opinion. Google is the main user of DMOZ data, and they pushed it off the front page a long time ago. Their directory is just an also-ran now.

This is just my guess, but I'd say that the only reason they still use the data is for the Descriptions, which they use as snippets when they best suit the searchterm. The same applies to Yahoo!.

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by The Old Sarge

Well ... that too. lol

But do you at least see my point?

Yes. Google is big on promotion, whereas DMOZ doesn't do any.

[SPC2]

Don't get the idea that I'm knocking DMOZ - I'm definitely not doing that. I'm only speaking realistically - at least according to my views, that it. Read the other DMOZ article on my site, and you'll see that I'm not a DMOZ knocker.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by dogluver

If my site got banned I might loose that one visitor this year. That would be bad. Lol

c
Selective reading can do that to people sometimes. :D You know, like how they're willing to pay at most $35 to get their site listed, so they'll only pay attention to the posts that talks about corrupt editors and focus on that aspect, no matter how illogical those posts are.

I've not seen any of the others. It's not selective reading, it's the only thing I can fond about DMOZ. Look at this thread and look at where your posting.

Originally Posted by janeth

I was listed in DMOZ for about two years, I think I had about 4 hits the whole two years.

[/quote]
My site has been listed for a few years, and I get about 1 hit per week, sometimes more or less, but it averages out to about 1 a week. I'm banking on those one hits per week to refer my site word of mouth. Kind of like how people have linked it on a forum and told people to check it out. There's nothing more humbling than having someone else refer people to my site.[/quote]

I'm not saying the one hit a week is bad but seems like to much work to get the one hit.

Originally Posted by janeth

I guess your the 4 hits I got. lol

Originally Posted by dogluver

Nah, I'm not interested in web design sites.

Maybe it was a different editor. (-:

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by SPC2

I've never had an experience anything like that with the post-Google search engines. Give me an example of a searchterm that you used, please.

I almost always find what I'm looking for on the first page, and usually in the top few results.

We must be searching for completely different things. I have searched for many different things using SEs.I'd usually go for double digit pages, then start over with new search terms. How about Apache server, Installing Apache, how to install Apache, Apache help, Apache tutorial, Apache, etc, I used a lot of different keywords before I finally got a clue - and that's just one search I performed on one day and over an hour before I finally gave up because I only found 1 site that was useful, but still wasn't exactly what I wanted. But, you'd also have to know exactly what I was looking for when I was searching for those terms at the time, because what you might think is a helpful site, is something I came upon and found useless.

Originally Posted by SPC2

Anyway, we've strayed off-topic here, and to get back...

It's utterly unscrupulous for an editor of a free directory to write to a submitter and say, thank you for submitting your site - the speed it will take to list it depends on how much you are willing to pay. For that category, DMOZ became a paid listing service for a while. Utterly unscrupulous.

I agree. But, from the e-mail I got the impression that he wasn't going to list the site unless the guy paid. Either that, or he'd let the guy's site intentionally stay in unreviewed for at least a year. And, unfortunately, I already see posts on other forums where people are asking about a "list of corrupt editors" and if they should initiate the contact, or wait for the editor to initiate it. And, that's a very good factual point about that category made Dmoz a paid listing service for a short while.

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by SPC2

Again, not in my opinion. Google is the main user of DMOZ data, and they pushed it off the front page a long time ago. Their directory is just an also-ran now.

Because it's off the Google front page means absolutely nothing. I don't think anyone would expect Google to keep their front page the same for eternity. Plus, Google doesn't feature a lot of things on their front page, does that mean Google's downplayed them? How about G-mail? Has it been downplayed since it's not on their front page? I remember when Froogle used to be on their frontpage, but it's not anymore. Does it mean Froogle has any less relevance to Google now? I think some people look a little too much into that (non)issue.

Originally Posted by SPC2

This is just my guess, but I'd say that the only reason they still use the data is for the Descriptions, which they use as snippets when they best suit the searchterm. The same applies to Yahoo!.

I'm sure you've heard the news by now that Google now supports the noodp tag? But, they still use Dmoz data. I think they do so because they recognize the quality of human-edited work versus something a website owner can easily manipulate. I've rarely heard of Yahoo using Dmoz snippets.

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by janeth

If my site got banned I might loose that one visitor this year. That would be bad. Lol

Your site's not even listed. It hasn't been since 2004....

Originally Posted by janeth

I've not seen any of the others. It's not selective reading, it's the only thing I can fond about DMOZ. Look at this thread and look at where your posting.

Oh, that's right. Thanks for reminding to me to always consider my sources. ;-) Of course, the only people that make those baseless allegations are webmasters on SEO forums who are angry that they can't get their site in the directory.

Originally Posted by janeth

I'm not saying the one hit a week is bad but seems like to much work to get the one hit.

What hard work? All I did was submit it, forget about it for awhile, then sometime later I said to myself that I should check to see if Dmoz listed my site. Not much worrying on my part. Not much hard work, either. The difference between me and someone who would complain about not being listed is that SEO isn't my life, and I don't think being listed in the directory will make or break my site. I don't spend my every working hour trying to manipulate search engines with superflous results that will give my site an edge. So, when I submitted my site to Dmoz, I didn't know what to expect, I read the instruction, followed them, wrote a guidelines compliant title and description (it was used exactly as I wrote it), and finished working on the content of my site to keep my visitors coming back. When I checked on my site for the first time it was already listed.

I do credit Dmoz for my site being included in hundreds of smaller directories. The only reason I noticed that was because I started getting hits from directories I had never heard of. I went to check my back links, and saw that a lot of directories that use Dmoz data was linking to my site. Also, my site was quickly crawled by Google and the hundreds of other search engines that feed from Dmoz. I only submitted my site to Google's search engine and Yahoo's, so I was happy to see my site turning up in other search engines. And, because of Dmoz my new site, at the time, was crawled by hundreds of search engines that made it easier for people to find my site. Plus, I get some hits from Google's directory. I'm happy that people hit my site from those places, that means my chances go up of them recommending my site to others, which is really what I want.

Originally Posted by janeth

Maybe it was a different editor. (-:

Maybe so, if you think your site isn't worthy of a regular Joe actually visiting it. :-D

[janeth]

Originally Posted by dogluver

It took me a year before I realized it had been removed. lol

Where you on your way to remove it? Lol

Maybe so, if you think your site isn't worthy of a regular Joe actually visiting it. :-D

Has nothing to do with my site, that would have more to do with DMOZ abilty to deliver traffic. Think about it.

[SPC2]

How about Apache server, Installing Apache, how to install Apache, Apache help, Apache tutorial, Apache, etc, I used a lot of different keywords before I finally got a clue - and that's just one search I performed on one day and over an hour before I finally gave up because I only found 1 site that was useful, but still wasn't exactly what I wanted. But, you'd also have to know exactly what I was looking for when I was searching for those terms at the time, because what you might think is a helpful site, is something I came upon and found useless.

It sounds like it's the searching technique that's not so good ;)

And, unfortunately, I already see posts on other forums where people are asking about a "list of corrupt editors" and if they should initiate the contact, or wait for the editor to initiate it.

Just about everything in forums about DMOZ is in the way of being moans and complaints. Corrupt editors have been discussed for a long time - sometimes started as sour grapes, by an editor who has been kicked out. But some of the arguments are started by editors - including metas. Some of them have an attitude that everyone is against them, so they start out on the attack (being the best form of defense), when no attacks were made. I've seen that happen.

I'm sure you've heard the news by now that Google now supports the noodp tag? But, they still use Dmoz data. I think they do so because they recognize the quality of human-edited work versus something a website owner can easily manipulate. I've rarely heard of Yahoo using Dmoz snippets.

If I haven't heard that news, I shouldn't be in this business ;) But Google doesn't exactly support the tag - they invented it. It doesn't change what I said, though. My best guess is that Google keeps the ODP data to use the descriptions as snippets when they best suit the searchterm.

Because it's off the Google front page means absolutely nothing.

It means that they downgraded it. I.e. they no longer considered it important enough to them to have it on the front page.

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by janeth

Where you on your way to remove it? Lol

Couldn't care less whether or not you're listed. You're the one who brought up that you'd lose that one visit per year, and I only pointed out that your site isn't even listed.

Originally Posted by janeth

Has nothing to do with my site, that would have more to do with DMOZ abilty to deliver traffic. Think about it.

It's not Dmoz's responsibility to drive traffic to your site. Dmoz is far, far from a marketing tool that any webmaster should use. It's up to webmasters to do what it takes to drive traffic to their sites, not some non-interested entity.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by dogluver

vCouldn't care less whether or not you're listed. You're the one who brought up that you'd lose that one visit per year, and I only pointed out that your site isn't even listed.

If you didn't care then why did you check? 0-:

Originally Posted by janeth

Has nothing to do with my site, that would have more to do with DMOZ abilty to deliver traffic. Think about it.

Originally Posted by dogluver

It's not Dmoz's responsibility to drive traffic to your site. Dmoz is far, far from a marketing tool that any webmaster should use. It's up to webmasters to do what it takes to drive traffic to their sites, not some non-interested entity.

Then what would be the reason for anyone wanting to be in your directory?

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by SPC2

It sounds like it's the searching technique that's not so good ;)

If that's the case, then put together some search terms and find me at least three good sites on what I was looking for. What a coincidence that those terms I used for the search engines that produced useless results are actually the same terms I used in Dmoz's search engine that took me to the 30 sites I browsed for information. My point in the part you bolded was that you don't know exactly the type of information I was looking for, so you can't then do a search and tell me you found some quality sites because you don't know if they contain the information I was searching for. So, are you going to take me up on my offer? It wasn't the search terms that were erroneous, it was the spammy results and many contentless pages. And, what would your search terms be for someone who's looking for a tutorial on how to install Apache server that's not from the official Apache site?

Originally Posted by SPC2

Just about everything in forums about DMOZ is in the way of being moans and complaints. Corrupt editors have been discussed for a long time - sometimes started as sour grapes, by an editor who has been kicked out. But some of the arguments are started by editors - including metas. Some of them have an attitude that everyone is against them, so they start out on the attack (being the best form of defense), when no attacks were made. I've seen that happen.

Notice they're SEO forums where webmasters and SEO types complain about issues that Dmoz editors don't really care about. Therefore, their complaints really don't matter to Dmoz. It usually starts with a webmaster making an over-generalized comment about all Dmoz editors that can't be substantiated because it's based on nothing but speculation and the fact that their site isn't listed. Dmoz editor corruption was started by webmasters who didn't have their website listed and thought it was due to a competitor maliciously keeping it out of the directory.

Originally Posted by SPC2

If I haven't heard that news, I shouldn't be in this business ;) But Google doesn't exactly support the tag - they invented it. It doesn't change what I said, though. My best guess is that Google keeps the ODP data to use the descriptions as snippets when they best suit the searchterm.

The Dmoz description won't be used if the NOODP tag is used. What a coincidence that, according to you, Google "introduced" the tag, but MSN began supporting it first. Please show me where Google officially say they invented the tag, although that's an irrelevant point, but since you brought it up, I really want to know. Here are two links to start you off. Google's official "support" of the NoOdp tag. Notice they use the word "support" on the blog. And, MSN's official announcement that they're introducing the tag to be used in single webpages. Please point me to any official Google documentation that they invented the tag, and not some hearsay you heard on someone's blog.

Originally Posted by SPC2

Because it's off the Google front page means absolutely nothing. It means that they downgraded it. I.e. they no longer considered it important enough to them to have it on the front page.

Have you taken the time to look at Google's front page lately? There is virtually NOTHING there! Virtually all of Google's links are 1 click away from the frontpage, which isn't bad at all. So, has Google now downgraded everything? According to your line of logic they have. Again, because Google's directory, like virtually every link that was once on the frontpagae, is now on the second page is meaningless. Has Google decided that all their links are now not important enough to put on the frontpage? Heck, on my website I had links on my frontpage, but when I re-designed the website I moved those links to anther page 1 click away. I guess that means they no longer play a pivotal role on my website? Um, no. It means, I only wanted to change things around, which is, in reality, a non-issue. That's a big jump to say that because Google moved it's directory, like all of it's other links, off the frontpage, that now those links are considered unimportant to be on the first page. I can't follow that logic at all.

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by janeth

If you didn't care then why did you check? 0-:

It's not hard to find your post at R-Z from 2004 where you wondered why your site was removed from the public view, at which point you were told that it was moved to a different category because the content had changed. I was naturally curious after that, so I checked to see if it's been added since that post.

Originally Posted by janeth

Then what would be the reason for anyone wanting to be in your directory?

If anyone wants to be in the directory specifically to get traffic to their site, then, as you've already pointed out, they'll be very surprised when the numbers don't add up. For webmasters, there is no incentive because Dmoz isn't designed to meet webmaster needs. It's also not about people choosing to want to be in Dmoz's directory, because editors can add sites with or without anyone's permission. As long as our visitors find what they're looking for, then that's all that matters. And, to be honest, I tell people not to worry about Dmoz and just submit and forget, because Dmoz will not meet their needs as webmasters. Now, Yahoo, on the other hand, might offer them what they want as far as being obligated to them, because Yahoo offers a service to webmasters.

And, just FYI, this is all my opinion. I don't speak for the ODP or its editing community, and another editor might chim in with a completely different opinion of the situation. But, you can tell where webmasters stand in Dmoz's eyes when webmasters complain about Dmoz to no avail.

[ctabuk]

This is purely from my personal experience and only within my professional area, namely Financial Services - there are still sites getting through into DMOZ that are basically illegal - no FSA Authorisation info, incorrect and misleading information - but that is hardly likely to be the Editors fault, if he or she is unaware of UK Law as they are based in Texas. Is this not a good opportunity to look at Geographical Location of editors? Excellent thread by all of you. Thanks David

[SPC2]

Originally Posted by dogluver

If that's the case, then put together some search terms and find me at least three good sites on what I was looking for ... you don't know exactly the type of information I was looking for, so you can't then do a search and tell me you found some quality sites

I don't know exactly what you were looking for, but if you were looking for a step by step tutorial on how to intall Apache, the #1 Google listing (sitepoint) for 'install apache tutorial' provides one. If that's not what you were looking for, then you'd need to refine your searchterm - searching technique.

Originally Posted by dogluver

Dmoz editor corruption was started by webmasters who didn't have their website listed and thought it was due to a competitor maliciously keeping it out of the directory.

I don't think that's true. I believe it was started by webmasters discovering such corruption, which did and does exist. That's one of the fundamental problems with the ODP model.

If MSN invented the NOODP tag, I stand corrected. I first came across it with Google.

Originally Posted by dogluver

Have you taken the time to look at Google's front page lately? There is virtually NOTHING there!

There never was anything much there, but the directory link was one of the few things that used to be there. Relegating it from the front page wasn't a positive change for it - it was a negative one. I'm sorry, but it happened. Images searches, Video searches, etc. are important enough to put on the front page, but the directory isn't any more. It's been relegated to just one in large list of other things, and very easy to never be aware of if you didn't know it was there.

They used to include directory listings in the search results, but when did you last see one? Their directory has been downgraded a lot.

Remember that Google changed from being a major search engine company to being a major advertising agency. The advertising agency needs the search engine side for its success, but Google is primarily an advertising agency. They don't put ads in their directory pages, so the directory does nothing for them businesswise, and they don't push it. They use the data for snippets when a description suits the searchterm, but, apart from that, it certainly looks like the directory is of no importance to them. It's my opinion that, if their directory didn't exist, they wouldn't create it, but they would still use the descriptions when applicable. Or maybe they have to keep the directory going so that they can use the descriptions.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by dogluver

If anyone wants to be in the directory specifically to get traffic to their site, then, as you've already pointed out, they'll be very surprised when the numbers don't add up. For webmasters, there is no incentive because Dmoz isn't designed to meet webmaster needs. It's also not about people choosing to want to be in Dmoz's directory, because editors can add sites with or without anyone's permission. As long as our visitors find what they're looking for, then that's all that matters. And, to be honest, I tell people not to worry about Dmoz and just submit and forget, because Dmoz will not meet their needs as webmasters.

You can't have one without the other. If visitors are indeed finding what they need, then the directory is generating traffic.

If webmasters are going to be disappointed in the traffic they receive, the visitors aren't finding what they need, or their simply aren't visitors using the directory.

Originally Posted by dogluver

The fact still remains that editors do not, if they don't want to, have to look at suggested sites. I'm one of those that choose not to, so the "backlog" is of no concern to me.

I find this most troubling.

If editors are not ever required to even bother to look at the submissions/suggestions to their category the DMOZ should not be taking them.

The "backlog" is arguably one of the largest generators of "ill will" towards the DMOZ. An editor stating that it is of no concern to them because they don't even bother to look is likely not a unique sentiment.

If this is truly the way of the DMOZ, shut down suggestions/submissions. At the very least the DMOZ, by accepting submissions/suggestions, is indicating they will be reviewed.

Dave

[The Old Sarge]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

This is purely from my personal experience and only within my professional area, namely Financial Services - there are still sites getting through into DMOZ that are basically illegal - no FSA Authorisation info, incorrect and misleading information - but that is hardly likely to be the Editors fault, if he or she is unaware of UK Law as they are based in Texas. Is this not a good opportunity to look at Geographical Location of editors? Excellent thread by all of you. Thanks David

How do you police the web when it would involve knowing the laws of every land from whence a web site is run/published/hosted?

The only thing we can do at this point (as we are not lawyers versed in international trade/law) is try to be aware and try to get the laws enforced where we live/work. And hope folks in other locals do the same.

Beyond that ... it would take <shudder> One World Government.

[SemAdvance]

It is funny to see who wrote they would pay off an editor to get in DMOZ.

That does not speak well for their own morals or what they would do to a clients site' for money.....

I think I'll use this post to show clients how dishonest other marketers are

Keep up the good work.....

Ohh and by the way...

You will never see an armored car following a hearse....

try not to be such moneyhoes lol

[janeth]

Originally Posted by SemAdvance

It is funny to see who wrote they would pay off an editor to get in DMOZ.

That does not speak well for their own morals or what they would do to a clients site' for money.....

I think I'll use this post to show clients how dishonest other marketers are

Keep up the good work.....

Ohh and by the way...

You will never see an armored car following a hearse....

try not to be such moneyhoes lol

I was playing if you care to read a little more.

But if you want to get personal let me know, we can do that as well.

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

but that is hardly likely to be the Editors fault, if he or she is unaware of UK Law as they are based in Texas.

I live in Ohio and don't know state laws. :-) But, if an editor feels a site might have a short life-span for the reasons you've mentioned then they don't have to list the site. But, Dmoz isn't really the Internet police, so I hope you notify your local authority about the sites that break your country's laws.

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by crankydave

You can't have one without the other. If visitors are indeed finding what they need, then the directory is generating traffic.

If webmasters are going to be disappointed in the traffic they receive, the visitors aren't finding what they need, or their simply aren't visitors using the directory.

You lost me somewhere in there. Are you saying that if a site doesn't get many hits from Dmoz, then that means visitors aren't finding what they're looking for? Visitors have many choices to choose from, so I'm sure they'll find what they're looking for, whether it's your site or your competitors. I also think how much traffic you get from Dmoz depends on which part of the directory you're listed in, but then again, I don't know Dmoz's visitor statistics.

Originally Posted by crankydave

I find this most troubling.

If editors are not ever required to even bother to look at the submissions/suggestions to their category the DMOZ should not be taking them.

The "backlog" is arguably one of the largest generators of "ill will" towards the DMOZ. An editor stating that it is of no concern to them because they don't even bother to look is likely not a unique sentiment.

If this is truly the way of the DMOZ, shut down suggestions/submissions. At the very least the DMOZ, by accepting submissions/suggestions, is indicating they will be reviewed.

Some editors wouldn't mind if the suggest a site link is turned off. Editors are supposed to find sites in other ways than just looking at the suggestions. Suggested sites will be reviewed, just not in a specified time-frame. I'd rather spend my time looking for sites on my own, than looking at suggestions. That's just me, because I've grown tired of the [you know what] that gets suggested. Another editor might rely on suggestions more. It's up to the editor to decide how he/she want's to spend their editing time. But, also, I'm not the only editor who can edit the categories I edit, so while I might not look at unreviewed sites, there's nothing to stop another editor from doing so. But, also, contrary to what I do, I also think most editors look at suggested sites. You know what, this weekend I'll log-in specifically to review a few suggested sites.

[dogluver]

Originally Posted by SPC2

To be honest, I've no time for people who feel that they >>>MUST<<< be listed, and moan like hell when they aren't, or when they have to wait forever. DMOZ started out trying to catalogue the Web, but that was never possible, and so it became a directory of selected, quality sites (which is actually better than the orginal aim) - and that's fair enough. I often defend DMOZ against the knockers, but I also talk realistically about it, as I did in that article.

I must have missed this post. I agree about the moaning webmasters. I ignore them and their emails.

Regarding Dmoz's original goals/aim, according to two of Dmoz's original co-founders, Dmoz has accomplished its original goal, which "was to produce the most comprehensive human-edited directory of the web." To catalogue most of the topics you'll find over the web is something Dmoz is doing well. You won't find many, if any, directories that have as many diverse topics as Dmoz.

My wife wants me off the web, so I've responded accordingly: yes, dear; okay, dear; whatever you want, dear. It ensures that I won't be sleeping on the floor tonight. :-D

[seogym]

This is too bad. If Dmoz editors are doing like this, whom do we trust?

[aaron2005]

Originally Posted by aaron2005

I would shell out 300 to get in. :)

I want to make it known that what I said above was purely a joke. I made it because many of us have past frustrations with the old DMOZ forum system.

That is all.

[rugs]

This is too bad. If Dmoz editors are doing like this, whom do we trust?

DMOZ editors!

Considering the number of editors, those who abuse the directory are a very small percentage. Which is still too many IMO. Some are caught very early in their editing career (if you call it that) and some later on. But they do get caught and removed.

[keywordguy]

If DMOZ requiring some type of small payment would help get sites index / listed faster I might be all for it. The editors would have some incentive and DMOZ would make some money...what's wrong with that?

What's in it for an editor anyway? Personal gratification?

[rugs]

What's in it for an editor anyway? Personal gratification?

There are various reasons editors apply to the ODP. Some reasons are:

1. Get own site listed and continuing to edit listing others. Gaining more permissions, editing experience, and knowledge of the directory is a good thing. Probably where any personal gratification comes in.

2. Be a part of a terrific international community helping others regardless of anything bias.

3. Sure beats vegging out in front of the TV. ;)

[ishfish]

Originally Posted by rugs

those who abuse the directory are a very small percentage

By my count, it's about 20%... which does not seem like a small number.

[scanmonkey]

Any editor that is soliciting $300 dollar bribes to be added to ODP is a donkey’s ass.

The only real money that can be made is for editors to work with SEO companies and get some real cheese. The seo clients would have no need to know as the bribe would be included in the seo fees. So some good money can be made. Especially for categories without an editor.

Any editor involved with something like this would be extremely upset with any donkey’s ass calling unneeded attention to the system.

Is the ODP corrupt? I don't know. But the way the system is set up, I suspect that there could be something going on.

[debarati]

I read the whole thread of this topic. I do agree that this is actually a wrong practice, But in the first page someone actually found a flaw....that is where is the proof?

If the editorship can be cancelled anytime....anyone can write about you or me.

Moreover, do anyone have any solution to it. If anyone in this thread is editor, let share that and get our sites listed.

Its really hard to get the editorship from Google. Let come to one solution and help each other.

Thanks
Debarati
debarati_seo@yahoo.com

[dan.kotarski]

Originally Posted by janeth

Everyone one on the Internet knows whats going on except for this guy. Too funny.

You all have no clue, especially you Janeth. DMOZ is a powerful resource, true. But it's limitations do NOT stop at a directory. I got what i wanted.... a little P.R. which, thanks to this post, will continue to climb. Was that all part of the plan??? Think about it and decide for yourself. Will i have a bad rap? Nope!....


It's also up to you to decide whenther i am the REAL Dan or not.

Last thing...MyFantasyZone.com has an automatic link submission page. Add your reciprocal link - it's fast, free and will help your P.R. too!!

www.myfantasyzone.com/addlink.asp

[scanmonkey]

Originally Posted by dan.kotarski

You all have no clue, especially you Janeth. DMOZ is a powerful resource, true. But it's limitations do NOT stop at a directory. I got what i wanted.... a little P.R. which, thanks to this post, will continue to climb. Was that all part of the plan??? Think about it and decide for yourself. Will i have a bad rap? Nope!....


It's also up to you to decide whenther i am the REAL Dan or not.

Last thing...MyFantasyZone.com has an automatic link submission page. Add your reciprocal link - it's fast, free and will help your P.R. too!!

www.myfantasyzone.com/addlink.asp

No, we don't know if you are Dan Kotarski. Though the site www.myfantasyzone.com is owned by a Dan Kotarski still doesn't confirm who you are.

Anyway, I don't understand your comment. Have you ever heard of bad PR?

I got what i wanted.... a little P.R. which, thanks to this post, will continue to climb.

[dan.kotarski]

Actually..i was talking about P.R. as in Page Rank..you know the 1-10 scale that search engines use to determine where your listing will appear in a relevant search. I am currently at a 3 and climbing (soon will be 4 which is actually pretty impressive
CNN is a 5 or 6). Of course, if you had any idea, you would have known that.

I, again, have proven my point. If you are a webmaster, you BETTER know what the most common of terms are and what they mean before talking hard.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by dan.kotarski

..you know the 1-10 scale that search engines use to determine where your listing will appear in a relevant search.

ugghhhhh, so wrong it is hard to even know where to start.

[dan.kotarski]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

ugghhhhh, so wrong it is hard to even know where to start.

ARE YOU JOKING???
go here for a definition of PR (when it comes to search engines):
http://forums.seochat.com/google-pag...pr-101708.html

[incrediblehelp]

Simply put PR has nothing to do with "determine where your listing will appear in a relevant search." By this statement then higher PR would mean you rank higher in the SERPs and we all know this is untrue.

Try this page for a better definition:

http://www.google.com/technology/

[scanmonkey]

Originally Posted by dan.kotarski

I, again, have proven my point. If you are a webmaster, you BETTER know what the most common of terms are and what they mean before talking hard.

Dan,

Are you serious? Look at what your statements. What point have you made?

1) - I got what i wanted.... a little P.R. which, thanks to this post, will continue to climb. Was that all part of the plan??? Think about it and decide for yourself. Will i have a bad rap? Nope!....

2) - I am currently at a [PR] 3 and climbing (soon will be 4 which is actually pretty impressive

3) - Page Rank..you know the 1-10 scale that search engines use to determine where your listing will appear in a relevant search.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

DMOZ can and will be useful to some, but stories like these are not new. The days of algorithmic boosts from DMOZ (if there ever were any) have been pretty much put to the waist side now.

Maybe in the english language, but for sure not in other languages.

[Peter (IMC)]

I am currently at a 3 and climbing (soon will be 4 which is actually pretty impressive
CNN is a 5 or 6). Of course, if you had any idea, you would have known that.

CNN is a 9,. :)

[Webnauts]

REMINDER:

The thread starter said:

A DMOZ editor is soliciting me for money. Check out the email I received from Daniel Kotarski, editor for the http://dmoz.org/Sports/Fantasy/Footb...ssioner_Tools/ category. His DMOZ username is dankotarski. If you feel he should be reported for abuse after reading this topic, please do it here:

http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

Though the thread seems to be gone off-topic. Issue is clarified and thread is closing here.