The DMOZ mob strikes again…

This weekend I was reading about Shoemoney being extorted by a DMOZ editor. I thought: heck, I’m a DMOZ editor, I don’t want to be associated with stuff like that, let’s see if I can do anything to help. So I posted something like that in the commentthread to the above post, and I added a note to Shoemoney’s URL in DMOZ asking why the URL was removed.

Now pay attention: within 36 hours after doing that, my account was disabled!

I’d put quite some work into that account; I was editing 9 categories at the time my account was disabled. I did NOT put all that hard work into it for some meta to come along and ban me on sight when he sees something he doesn’t like, without sending ANY email or other notification.

If AOL is serious about wanting to improve DMOZ, this would be a good place to start. For now, I’ll join the crowd of people saying Google should stop using DMOZ. Of course there are editors who do a good job, but these mob like practices make it impossible to work with and for.

Login removed screenshot
Screenshot of my DMOZ profile

Update: Having seen some of the discussion in the DMOZ forums, it looks like I was banned because I had BOOKMARKED shoemoney.com, with the simple reason of wanting to add a note to it… My god.

Tags:


Yoast.com runs on the Genesis Framework

Genesis theme frameworkThe Genesis Framework empowers you to quickly and easily build incredible websites with WordPress. Whether you're a novice or advanced developer, Genesis provides you with the secure and search-engine-optimized foundation that takes WordPress to places you never thought it could go.

Read our Genesis review or get Genesis now!

264 Responses

  1. fathomBy fathom on 28 August, 2007

    Now pay attention… If you were a DMOZ editor that don’t want to be associated with stuff like that…

    1. why didn’t you check out the sent emails first? – I’d want to see those including the tcp-ip paths. (surely you don’t just take every strngers’ word at face value.

    2. why didn’t he “report it” using the abuse form? … and where are those emails? …and why didn’t you aid him in report the abuse?

    3. did you look at the time stamp on archive.org 20070306 – why did he wait almost 5 months to post publicly? Since you knew yourself the listing added in March 2007 was deleted in April 2007 for public bribery way back in 2005.

    4. Since shoemoney discussed this with OPD I’m sure he can also provide you those emails.

    5. I find it hard to believe that you would simply throw caution to the wind and “jump into a shit-pile” for a complete stranger without so much as “checking your facts first”… smells like … well … it “stinks”!

  2. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    fathom: first of all, thx for replying here and having the guts to take it out in the open!

    secondly: timestamps on archive.org are always way in the past.

    thirdly: shoemoney is not a complete stranger, in fact, he’s a good friend of a friend.

    and fourthly: where is the reason in all this to delete my account?

  3. Jake CopBy Jake Cop on 28 August, 2007

    This whole thing stinks eh? Dmoz has really dug itself a hole so deep it might even be enough to bury the corruption. Fathom has been defending the Dmoz practises for a while now at the seochat forum, but alas it’s all for nowt.

  4. JarrodBy Jarrod on 28 August, 2007

    I know what you mean, I’m also an editor at DMOZ, and I just wrote about how corrupt it is. Really, no one can deny that DMOZ is important to google and to rankings, but I think google needs to drop them and discount the entire directory. I wonder how long it will be until I get my account removed? :)

  5. AnonBy Anon on 28 August, 2007

    Hell, I’m an editor for DMOZ and was editing 4 categories. Now I’m editing only 3 …

    One day some webmaster wanted to get his site listed which i had to deny. His site was a banner farm and I mailed him to tell him that he shouldn’t use that many ads. He replied and offered me $500 for a listing. I rejected that offer ..

    Something about 3 hours later a Meta removed me from the category and that banner farm site was suddenly listed.

    DMOZ is corrupt :/

  6. dinkBy dink on 28 August, 2007

    Interesting story, anon. Too bad you don’t provide any details about the site. Did you submit an abuse report? And now I’m curious: why would anybody offer to pay $500 for a listing if his friend the meta can list it for free?

  7. fathomBy fathom on 28 August, 2007

    >>>Something about 3 hours later a Meta removed me from the category and that banner farm site was suddenly listed.

  8. Jake CopBy Jake Cop on 28 August, 2007

    I wouldn’t let one obviously suspect tale from Anon detract from the bigger issue here Fathom.

  9. ResonateBy Resonate on 28 August, 2007

    Its official, DMOZ is truly corrupt seems to be a rightful case of throwing out the honest editors in room for more greedy corrupt noobs!!!

    !! DOWN WITH DMOZ !!

  10. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    Thx for all the comments, but I agree with Jake Cop: Fathom: you know what the issue is here, I hope you’ll fix it.

  11. fathomBy fathom on 28 August, 2007

    Archive.org timestamps are accurate – it does however, take 6 months for any data to appear.

    It was quite obvious that you had a relationship with shoemoney…

    I cannot speak for Metas (the minimum privilege required to revoke your account) – I’ll take a fair guess though…

    As a DMOZ Editor you are required to disclose all your affiliations, this would include your friends domains that you have actual knowledge of…

    I’ll “assume” (for the moment) you did not since shoemoney claims most of his domains are in OPD and as he also proclaims to bribe editors clear none of his domains would be in OPD “IF” you followed your obligations to OPD.

    This is merely some friendly advice — your own logs tell a story and the more ‘light’ you two bring to this whole thing the more inside interest you’ll acquire…

    Candidly, there are some pretty dumb junior editors at OPD but that fall for ‘bribes’ but at the other end there are volume of pretty smart cookies … from where I sit you’re the key, you and your SEO practices because “what are friends for but helping each other out”.

    Nonetheless, I got nothing to lose by taking it out in the open… sure sounds as if shoemoney does. (well a little anyway since “it’s just a link of two).

  12. xixtasBy xixtas on 28 August, 2007

    The dmoz.org guidelines say “The content of the ODP Editor Forum, Editors’ Notes, and Editor-to-Editor email or Feedback are private and intended only for internal use by ODP editors. Editors may not publish or disclose quotes from these sources to anyone other than other editors or the ODP staff.”

    You punched your own ticket when you typed in that editor name and hit submit.

  13. fathomBy fathom on 28 August, 2007

    >>>Something about 3 hours later a Meta removed me from the category and that banner farm site was suddenly listed.

    I commented earlier — not sure what happened?

    In any case:

    1. What was the category

    2. What was the banner farm

    3. who was the Meta?

  14. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    xixtas: could be, well if that was my mistake, it was my mistake, but does that give ample reason for deleting a login? My god…

  15. nonyBy nony on 28 August, 2007

    “but does that give ample reason for deleting a login?”

    The guidelines xixtas quoted also say “Violation of ODP email or forum privacy will not be tolerated and is grounds for removal and possible legal action.” From http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy

  16. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    Hehe, well, it was a known fact already, DaveN posted about Jim Noble a while back for the same reason. If something is already out in the open and I still can’t talk about it in a comment, the rules are lame.

  17. robjonesBy robjones on 28 August, 2007

    Let’s translate some of this from BS to English:
    =========================
    >>shoemoney is not a complete stranger, in fact, he’s a good friend of a friend.>I’d put quite some work into that account; I was editing 9 categories at the time my account was disabled.>I added a note to Shoemoney’s URL in DMOZ asking why the URL was removed>I posted something like that in the commentthread to the above post

  18. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    @robjones: calling what I write BS probably isn’t the best way of getting me to react kindly.

  19. robjonesBy robjones on 28 August, 2007

    I could care less how you react. My post garbled as it transmitted, so to repeat the gist of it: You were using edit privs to to favor inclusion of a site by “a close friend of a friend”. Doing so you expose another editor to harrassment. Your “note” to editors was a rant that included a word that’d get you kicked out of any workplace.

    But you don’t know why they pulled the plug?

    Try stepping back a bit and noticing that his entire laughable story was just bait to draw hits as the terminally gullible rallied to his support.

  20. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    rob: the disrespect you show me now is way worse than what I’ve ever shown to any DMOZ editor. Think of that.

  21. robjonesBy robjones on 28 August, 2007

    Not true in the least, but then I can’t publish your edit note and you know it.

  22. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    I can though, I said something like “are we so childish as to prevent people from being listed because they offered a bribe once?”

    And I still think that’s childish, even though there’s this so called “zero-tolerance” policy on bribes. The sad truth is there are editors who ask money, I’d way rather have people fight that, than blame the people who give in to that nonsense because they want the listing.

  23. fathomBy fathom on 28 August, 2007

    What he said was likely the closest to the truth than you care to admit… and while you may not wish to hear it your opening line “The DMOZ mob strikes again…” is a good “truth headline”.

    People that abuse the system whether that is intentional or unintentional – are the problem “not the solution”… the great rant here, at Shoemoney, and a bunch of other portals is focus on “corruption” and that (in this particular case) is you… your the cause.

    The one thing I’ve learned from my submarines days “nobody ever believes they’ll get caught”… and that stems from an honest belief that you (meaning ‘you’ in general) are smarter than everyone else… and you set yourself up for a fall because it is really bad odds “1″ against the whole world of dmoz (when dmoz has all the tools) and with those odds you’ll lose everytime.

    It’s unfortunate that your friend put you in such a compromising position… hopeful it was worth it.

  24. robjonesBy robjones on 28 August, 2007

    You’re being modest now Joost, or does this forum have a filter that removes profanity?

    Other editors were simply following guidelines. Your visceral reaction was the first sign you weren’t unbiased, and now it turns out the guy that got himself banned and on whose behalf you were acting is a close friend of a friend. Funny how that makes you the unbiased one.

    Meanwhile this is a prime example of why people shouldn’t believe every innocent “I don’t know why I was canned” story. This is actually a good example of the system working as it should.

  25. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    Well I must say it’s funny to see so much people from DMOZ out in the open :P I didn’t do anything else than adding a note to the URL asking why it wasn’t listed.

    Even though it’s a friend of a friend, I honestly think that because of the status of his site in the community, it SHOULD be listed. Adding that note was not done on his request, and I would never have done that. It was done out of the anger of seeing that somebody had denied listing to one of the most well read blogs in the affiliate marketing sphere, over a stupid line in the DMOZ rule book.

    What’s lacking here, IMHO, is a good way of DMOZ looking at itself. DMOZ is good for nothing else than search engine rankings, believe me I know, I’ve got a few sites listed, and if you get 2 hits a year from it it’s a lot.

    So I do know a bit about why I was denied access now, I still think it’s nonsense, and I still think it’s no way to deal with people, to let me guess about the reason for deletion. Let this post be a warning to all those hard working DMOZ editors out there: you can loose your rights in an instant, just by making one remark that doesn’t fit the meta police.

    Rob and Fathom: I respect you guys for coming out so openly and reacting to me. You’re probably hard working DMOZ editors as well and deserve respect for that. I had just hoped other DMOZ editors would have given me the same respect. I would have accepted a reprimand, account deletion though, makes it sound like a big fat cover up.

  26. xixtasBy xixtas on 28 August, 2007

    Please understand that I had nothing to do with your removal and have no more knowledge of it than anyone else. I’m guessing, but I’m pretty sure I’m guessing right. I know that the policy has been consistently applied ever since I’ve been an editor. You put something in quotes and attach an editor name to it, you’re out.

  27. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    @xixtas: I know who banned me, don’t worry, I won’t blame you. The policy just stinks.

  28. robjonesBy robjones on 28 August, 2007

    Just to be clear, I’m not privy to the removal discussions. Though the profane the edit note was a violation of communication guidelines, probably you’d have had your hand slapped for it. Don’t know, never tried that.

    OTOH, exposing a fellow editor to abuse (and trust me, abuse to editors has been vicious at times) would more likely be a termination worthy offense. I think you know you violated more than just the rules of decorum there.

    If you back away and look at this I think you’ll notice you went to war to get a policy changed on behalf of someone you had some familiarity with knowing he’d broken our rules. That isn’t an unbiased methodology, and that isn’t how we do business.

    The rule has a purpose:
    Whether corruption exists or not there will always be some to claim it is there. Not listing those that offer bribes is a logical way to avoid appearing to accept them. That’s pretty simple, and it has to be zero tolerance or we’re playing favorites.

    If the guy is as sharp as you think he is, he’d understand that. You’re the one that took the fall, and his site is getting ample hits for passing his lie off as the truth. He profits, you pay the price. If I were you I’d track him down to discuss it, but you may have a kinder heart than I do.

  29. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    I did not expose Jim Noble, that had happened way before I did it, for the same reasons.

    Though I understand people created the rule for this reason, that would only work if corruption did not or hardly existed. Nothing is less true though, it’s so widespread that people see no other way than offering a bribe to get in. Once that’s the case, and whether you agree it is or not doesn’t matter, it is what people think, the rule is stupid.

    There’s one thing we agree on here. I do think I have a kinder heart than you do :)

  30. robjonesBy robjones on 28 August, 2007

    In reality I have the heart of a small child.

    I store it in a jar on my desk. :-P

  31. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 28 August, 2007

    Hehe, ok, you made me laugh there :)

  32. fathomBy fathom on 28 August, 2007

    1. It matters not whether rules are stupid or not or even obsolete… until they are democratically (or unilaterally) changed we follow them… and we tend to know what happens when we don’t.

    2. [[My position only]]… Shoemoney might be the best example of its kind (in content) unfortunately OPD wasn’t built for just the “best examples”. Shoemoney may indeed be the leader in its field but this (in itself) doesn’t meet OPD listing criteria. The issue of “why Shoemoney doesn’t have and will never have a listing to simple”… there are OPD rules for everyone to follow and then there are Shoemoney rules… unfortunately OPD Only rules apply.

  33. JackBy Jack on 28 August, 2007

    lol – here you can see what happens if some “free speech open source wikipedialover”-hippies get a chance to make money without any work.

    dmoz is corrupt!

  34. robjonesBy robjones on 29 August, 2007

    A fine example of the type of critical thinking we’re so used to seeing from detractors. Who could possibly argue with that?

    I’m glad all the children here got to see that. Not only was it to the point and heartfelt… it was also a prime sample of *authentic* internet gibberish.

    *** feels urge to re-watch “Blazing Saddles”… wanders off ***

  35. AlexBy Alex on 29 August, 2007

    DMOZ is not efficient anymore. It is declining day by day. People go for several other alternatives since you have to wait for ages to list your site.

    Alex
    http://www.egold-directory.com

  36. LisaBy Lisa on 29 August, 2007

    some people never ever make it to get a dmoz listing. Yahoo paid listing is million times better and works for me. Traffic is relatively higher too.

    Lisa
    http://www.prankvideoz.com

  37. RobertBy Robert on 29 August, 2007

    I’ve been submitting my website for addition into DMOZ for about 2 years and have had no response ever (or addition). I’ve even submitted an “abuse” form (which was impossible to find in the first place) and heard nothing back. DMOZ is a joke. Whoever is running the category probably doesn’t want any more competition in it, or just as bad — no one is editing it.

  38. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    For all those that “dmoz is dead”, “it’s a joke”, or “not efficient anymore”… what does it say about you that you can’t let the dead dog lie?

    You’re absolutely ‘side-splitting’… “dmoz is so dead… I need to ensure I keep the death discussion going”.

  39. RobertBy Robert on 29 August, 2007

    I forgot about how terrible it was until I read this. Instead of arguing with me — why don’t you offer some way for DMOZ to be accountable? The IDEA is right, it’s just the implementation that’s wrong. I would like my site to be listed, as it belongs in there, but obviously something needs to change on DMOZ’s end before we should care about it again.

  40. RobertBy Robert on 29 August, 2007

    Sorry to make this a second post but as for why I’m bitching about it on some blog: This is the first time I’ve found a real way to catch the ear (and get any response) of anyone at DMOZ. How about a big “CONTACT US” page? Customer Service?

    Don’t tell me because you’re solely volunteer based and can’t carry the load, because that’s a load. I work with open source groups that have millions of users and they do just fine supporting them.

  41. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    I’ll be happy to remove the link http://Dmoz.org.Suckered.Us when someone explains to me why I haven’t been listed in entertainment / reviews area after applying countless times. I also note an influx of dmoz traffic to my site and to that domain in particular which doesn’t include my 500,000 pageviews daily.

    If dmoz would be interested in listing my site as I’ve applied numerous times (At least 5 times) and it’s in the correct catagory, then I will remove the link. There are sites in there that are far less valuable. If DMOZ wishes to deal with the editors who are extorting funds from individuals It might be a good time, and put some people who actually will do a proper job in the places.

    I even applied to edit the catagory mentioned above with my vast experience and nothing for a reply when obviously the editor isn’t doing thier job..

    So when DMOZ contacts me to discuss, I’ll be more than happy

    admin @ suckered.us ..

    Until then the link gets 500,000 views per day and increasing.

  42. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    [quote]The dmoz.org guidelines say “The content of the ODP Editor Forum, Editors’ Notes, and Editor-to-Editor email or Feedback are private and intended only for internal use by ODP editors. Editors may not publish or disclose quotes from these sources to anyone other than other editors or the ODP staff.�

    You punched your own ticket when you typed in that editor name and hit submit.[/quote]

    I see now where the traffic panic has come from. So you’re well aware of the domain. Good. Now do something. It’s easy to make go away. Show some tact and list some real sites and fire the extorting editors.

  43. SteveBy Steve on 29 August, 2007

    It’s well-known that DMOZ is corrupt and it has only gotten worse. People in the SEO industry know all too well how the ‘pay for inclusion’ system works with DMOZ. Call it a bribe if you will, but it’s so standard that some companies just charge for DMOZ submission and then pay the editor with it. The only reason anyone cares about DMOZ inclusion is Google’s ties to it and rankings. Whenever Google wises up and dumps DMOZ, the whole situation will be moot.

  44. randfishBy randfish on 29 August, 2007

    Joost – I’m sure I’ve told you in the past, but in 2005 and 2006, we had several clients who wanted in to DMOZ and were able to find editors to pay who could get them included. I’m not sure why that’s so bad, though – Yahoo! is a for-pay directory, and most of the others are pay-to-play as well. I suppose the hypocrisy is frustrating, but as long as you’re aware of the rules and how to play the game, DMOZ is just another paid directory. There’s no particular reason that I can see for complaining about it – from our measurement, the links from the vast majority of categories no longer send much traffic, and many pass very little link juice either. I’d say that at this point, from an SEO perspective, the ODP can simply be ignored.

  45. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 29 August, 2007

    @Rand: it can be a good link, like there are thousands of others to be had. Stupid thing was I was actually having some fun doing the DMOZ work :) Well I’ll have to think of something else to spend my time on now ;)

  46. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    >>>I would like my site to be listed, as it belongs in there,

  47. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    Not sure why my posts get scratched after the first line…

    Ranfish — [we had several clients who wanted in to DMOZ and were able to find editors to pay who could get them included. I’m not sure why that’s so bad, though]

    Well “what if” you had an employee that managed a dozen clients but on the side had a dozen of his own… and because the workload of 2 dozen clients is too much your dozen got the short end of the stick and far less effort… to the point that you clients question your capabilties.

    Your clients are totally dissatisfied with your performance record … while that wasn’t directly cause by you, you hired the employee and his shortcomings are yours…

    What do you do… tell 12 clients to stuff it and protect the employee?

    You view OPD as “just a directory” and rules are seemingly unimportant — unlike your own business where “rules must be followed”… or you you actually allow employees to do whatever they desire and still provide them the privilege of have secured employment?

    For a guy that sounds so intelligent Rand – you’re pretty dumb if you can’t understand that large orgs can only survive with formal rules and policies…

    Show me any large org (for profit or NFP) whose foundation is built on “whatever blows your hair back”?

  48. randfishBy randfish on 29 August, 2007

    Joost – I have no fear you’ll find great ways to spend your time. :)

    Fathom – Rules work two ways. If they exist and they work and they’re applied universally, that’s great, but clearly a lot of people inside and out of DMOZ don’t play within the rules, and I fail to see the nobility in giving clients 2nd rate service in the hopes that the ODP will reform its editors.

  49. Random J. WebmasterBy Random J. Webmaster on 29 August, 2007

    Incompetence, hypocrisy, corruption: these are the new by-words of DMOZ. The sooner this hive of corrupt editors, gets delisted by Google.

    I’d normally be brave enough use my real name and url but it strikes me that with the petulance and nastiness displayed thus far by the editors, that would be an extremely bad business decision.

  50. KaiBy Kai on 29 August, 2007

    i dont know why fathom is putting a lot of effort in defending the dmoz, you guys should put your efforts in throwing those corrupt editors out od dmoz instead.
    and is see so much crappy sites listed in the dmoz, so i dont see any reason for not listing shoemoney. guidlines are good, but sometimes its better to use your common sense.
    so all want to be listed in the dmoz because the listing is so valueable….. moooot…. its just because every beginner seo thinks it brings him to the top in the search engines.
    so if the dmoz ist still so valueable for the users why not make the outgoing links nofollow? because google also thinks that paid links are bad links… and nobody can tell me that there are no paid links there. when you make your links nofollow thers no value in passing link love to sites, so all the seo guys and pr junkies dont want to submit anymore, and the corrupt guys dont get money anymore.
    but the other side would be that no one wants to submit their sites anymore or visits the dmoz at all and the dmoz would slowly die.

  51. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    OK, I’m getting to this party late, but:

    1. I’m a DMOZ editor. In fact, I edit the category of SEO blogs (different category name than that, but that’s what it amounts to).

    2. Back in January, when I got assigned the category, I went on a binge and added the several dozen best SEO blogs I could quickly find. This was easy, as there are various rankings of same, and lots of cross-listings.

    3. Shoemoney’s couldn’t be added, due to the bribe-related red flag.

    4. When I posted about that exclusion, WITHOUT mentioning the name of the editor who placed it, I caused annoyance. But I did not get privileges revoked, or even threatened with same.

    5. Over in http://www.texttechnologies.com/category/vendors/odp-and-dmoz/ I’ve published a lot else about DMOZ, some of it critical. People are annoyed and in at least one case infuriated, more at the supposed breach of privacy than at the actual public criticisms. However, it’s not actually against the guidelines to do what I did, and I’ve never been threatened with discipline for it.

    6. Not everybody in ODP favors secrecy. Many feel there should be more light shed on what goes on. Others feel there should be less light shed.

    7. More generally, except for the really brainless ones, just about every criticism seen outside ODP is discussed internally.

    Bonus point: Some of the other best SEO blogs were deleted AFTER I listed them for a different reason, namely that they were “deeplinks” to the authors parent site, which was also listed. Exactly the same thing happened in other categories that have nothing to do with SEO. This has seriously demotivated me from editing blog categories, and I’m kind of treading water until I see what changes are made in that regard.

    Extra bonus point: This very blog get a little bit of special treatment from me after Joost emailed me about it. This is not because he was a DMOZ editor. It was because I actually read the blog before I ever knew he was an editor, and hence had a particularly strong opinion about its listing-worthiness. THAT kind of bias is welcomed in the ODP, and rightly so. It’s simply a bias in favor of listing sites one thinks well of.

    CAM

  52. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 29 August, 2007

    Thx CAM, you give me some hope for DMOZ’s future.

  53. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    Rand I’ve worked in large organizations and in any day of the year there was always a few late for work, failing in their dress and deportment, some that stole, others that abused there authority, one case was child molestation and another; a murderer… but these varying degrees of non-compiance to good order and discipline and the rarer inhuman acts do not suggest the greater community needs reforming…

    On the contrary — you seemed to be the one that needed reforming… it has always been “just a link” – just an established link and no different than any other established link.

  54. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 29 August, 2007

    Fathom: that’s not true. It has been way more than “just a link” in the past, and in some areas, it’s still one of the best links you can get.

  55. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    Kai [dont know why fathom is putting a lot of effort in defending the dmoz, you guys should put your efforts in throwing those corrupt editors out od dmoz instead.]

    Actually for a variety of reasons that you may not think of.

    I followed Joost opd profile link to here reviewed his blog and found it wasn’t overly active in comments… and the one thing I do “GREAT” is spawn posts.

    The fact that I commented first with an alternative position of Joost’s posted findings and he didn’t ‘delete it’ speaks volumes for integrity.

    It’s unfortunate that things transpired as they did but no matter what… “the system” cannot ignore one failing because another one started it.

    As for defending OPD – I’m extremely vocal in my convictions and you don’t need to look any further than where I usually post SEOChat to know when I disagree with you; you know it.

  56. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    When Google killed (de-indexed) opd clones in 2004 the value was dropped to just x2 link value and since Google hasn’t updated its own directory in 2 years any listing inclusion in 2006-2007 doesn’t get the Google ‘X2 kick’ — as such any extra link value you think you get today is only “preceived value” — in fact you’ll get more value in lesser quality domains by the added value of rich link anchor which in some instances in OPD isn’t possible.

  57. tytakestBy tytakest on 29 August, 2007

    “If AOL is serious about wanting to improve DMOZ, this would be a good place to start.”

    You did notice that the decision was “thoroughly reviewed by DMOZ staff”?

  58. anonymousBy anonymous on 29 August, 2007

    I’ve been submitting sites to DMOZ for 2 years, relevant catagories and companies no2 or no3 in their field – i’ve submitted them twice now but with no feedback how can a webmaster be told why his site has no entry – despite submitting abuse forms about competitors with multiple catagory listings. As to the bribery, never heard of that before but with the secrecy around DMOZ editing it would not surprise me. If offered a bribe I would refuse it, any site that had that going on would de-value itself in my eyes. DMOZ through its closed nature and no-feedback culture again devalues itself.
    As to the content of DMOZ, some of the worst sites ever i’ve seen in there.

  59. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 29 August, 2007

    @fathom: google recently re-merged Google Directory with DMOZ.

  60. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    tytakest [“If AOL is serious about wanting to improve DMOZ, this would be a good place to start.�

    You did notice that the decision was “thoroughly reviewed by DMOZ staff�?]

    Which is to say they took alot more time to review than you.

  61. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    As I understand Google has not done a rdf dump since Dec 19, 2005

  62. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 29 August, 2007
  63. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    anonymous [I’ve been submitting sites to DMOZ for 2 years]

    …oh grow up… that really sucks but of course 590,000 categories with average 8000 editors – that about 74 category per editor and 4,830,584 listings – 603 listings per current editors… an editor is require to login an an edit once every 4 months… but let’s say an editor reviews all 603 in that 4 months plus new listings … submissions come in at a rate of 1200 per day (approx.) in 4 month that’s 144,000 = 18 new listing to keep up with the backlog…

    Now you might believe that a review is a 30 second venture… in fact most are an hour or longer, many are 2-3 hours and some are 40-50 people-hours… all of volunteer time.

    Maybe you should “get involved” since you have a much better appreciation of how much time voluntary work is worth.

  64. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    Please note in that post:

    This information isn’t 100% confirmed.

    Since I’ve created 3 new categories previous unavailable in Google and the are still not in Google… they didn’t update… they may indded downloaded the rdf but they haven’t uploaded it.

  65. PeteYBy PeteY on 29 August, 2007

    Surely the problem with DMOZ goes further than some of the critisisms on here. From a usabibility perspective, I have found it very slow for a while now, and whether it is dead or not, there is no doubting the fact it is/was in desperate need of an overhaul.

    Secondly, there are infrastructure problemms at DMOZ. I tried on a nummber of occasians to apply to edit for the DMOZ directory, and was rejected on a number of occasians (stopped about three years ago) despite the fact that DMOZ did not and still does not have enough editors to keep the directory up to viable commercial standards. (I will be honest and add the applications were done on the quick – and thats is probably the reason – however it is more the lack of editors I amm keen to highlight)

    Dmoz is a wonderful idea – and still could be a resounding success, but surely it needs to get its house in order quickly.

    Public flaming/arguing like this surely doesn’t help its perception either publically, commercially or within the industry though does it.

  66. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 29 August, 2007

    Fathom: they’ve updated it on some datacenters, a few of my sites are listed on those datacenters, whereas the listing is only 3 months old.

  67. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    Whether they update or not really doesn’t matter. “2 links” without rich keywords can be overpowered by 3 that are keyword rich.

  68. GukBy Guk on 29 August, 2007

    DMOZ should seriously start improving their system. I understand that it is free to submit your websites, but there are really no ways to know why the website has been rejected or even if it has been reviewed.

    DMOZ should improve the communication between webmasters and editors. Seriously.

    No one cares about DMOZ anymore because there is no communication. People submit their websites in DMOZ and forget about it. As result, DMOZ becomes unpopular everyday.

    Kudos to fathom for being so active.

  69. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    PeteY [I tried on a nummber of occasians to apply to edit for the DMOZ directory, and was rejected on a number of occasians (stopped about three years ago) despite the fact that DMOZ did not and still does not have enough editors to keep the directory up to viable commercial standards.]

    Since I’m not a Meta I don’t chime in on applications… but I can tell you that those Meta that do take the review of an application very seriously.

    If you went to a job interview and ‘rush’ your application form, resume etc. what are the changes of a first “bad impression”.

    The logic of the app process goes like this:

    AA. You your trustworthy?

    1. good spelling and grammar?

    2. appreciates basic editing skills?

    3. are they interest in editing a listing (theirs) or editing a category of listings?

    4. is favoritism apparent?

    5. knowledgeable of the topical area?

    6. shown enthusiasm to edit?

    If you score well in all these areas you are a shoein for an editorships… you may not get accepted but a reject does not mean “don’t try again” the only time your should try again is when they say not to.

  70. Peter YoungBy Peter Young on 29 August, 2007

    Fathom

    Thanks for the overview above – tbh I have long since left the days behind of wanting to edit directories – however I do appreciate the time you have taken to respond to many of the comments above.

    I do have to ask a question however – I have seen a number of well known SEO’s in here including yourself – and surely by the mere fact we as SEO’s are in in the industry for getting (DMOZ) links (maybe not so much now) draws the issue of impartiality of many of the editors into slightly murky territory. Would appreciate your thoughts on that

  71. RichardBy Richard on 29 August, 2007

    Its important that DMOZ do the right thing.

    http://www.home-business-pays.com

  72. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    Hello. Is anyone going to reply to me? I even offered to edit the catagory.

    http://Dmoz.org.Suckered.Us is now main page of my site due to pageviews and currently number 10 of the top ten most read articles.

    All I’m interested in is a discussion with someone who has any power to do anything and as I mentioned I’ve applied 5 times for the entertainment / reviews catagory and as you can see my site is strong enough to be in there. In fact do a look up on our friend the Big G for Dmoz.org .. My site should have a listing. If no one wants to login and edit a catagory for the next 4 months give me the damn job. I’ll do it daily. That’s called efficiency. Someone who logs in every 4 months has no business being an editor.

    After reading above I note a comment about “What’s the big deal.. Yahoo is a paid directory”

    My reply to that is “Yes sure they are however they’re clear about this in every manner whereas DMOZ editors are actually accepting bribes and hiding it under the table.”

    Unacceptable. If DMOZ wants to be a paid directory. I’d have no problem with that so long as every who pays gets in and good luck getting 5k for it happening.

    Waiting for the email.

  73. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    There must be alot of internal mailing going on at DMOZ

    Here’s the search results for my site there

    Search: suckered

    Open Directory Categories (1-1 of 1)
    Shopping: Home and Garden: Kitchen and Dining: Baking (1 match)

    Open Directory Sites (1-1 of 1)

    Get Suckered – Source for chocolate and candy making supplies. Featuring kids baking products, over 120 flavored oils, thousands of sucker and lollipop molds, instructions and recipes.
    http://www.getsuckered.com Shopping: Home and Garden: Kitchen and Dining: Baking (1)

    And here’s my traffic stats

    - DMOZ 3987 17717

    Whats that say?

  74. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    Sites (like yours) that fit in the “Shopping” category would, I guess, have a particularly low rate of review.

    I don’t think it’s one of the more active or up-to-date parts of ODP and DMOZ.

    CAM

  75. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    Shopping? LMAO – If you say so. Anything / anyone can be reviewed .. And the reads are tremendous.

    Here’s an update on how much Dmoz really doesn’t like being on the front page of it.. From thier internal mailing system.

    - DMOZ 6532 28785

    No one’s bothered to mail me yet to talk about this. Still awaiting. I’m not opposed to some discussion at all.

  76. Honest WebmasterBy Honest Webmaster on 29 August, 2007

    Cmon google do no evil! Drop DMOZ now.

  77. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    If a site exists for the purpose of selling things, DMOZ classifies it as “Shopping.”

    If you didn’t know that, you have NO grounds for complaint about your site submission or editor application being rejected or ignored.

    That’s quite separate from any questions along the lines of “Hey! Are you saying that e-commerce sites have a particularly low chance of getting added promptly??”

    CAM

  78. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    Peter Young Aug 29 [I have seen a number of well known SEO’s in here including yourself - and surely by the mere fact we as SEO’s are in in the industry for getting (DMOZ) links (maybe not so much now) draws the issue of impartiality of many of the editors into slightly murky territory. Would appreciate your thoughts on that.]

    I edit at OPD for a few reasons…

    1. I bookmark domains I find interesting – in topics I find interestings.

    2. the feeling of accomplishment and saying “I did it”… I categorized a complete list of complementing domain for a topic that wasn’t previously covered.

    3. The backend community covers issues that no other forum covers – and it’s a privilege to be able to comment and debate with others without public interruption

    There are other but that’s the first things to come to mind:

    On the SEO side:

    1. If you think you need opd listings to be a superb SEO – you are obsolete… there are so many other great places to get links from that are far easier and you don’t need to violatre rules to get them.

    2. OPD is just a blood link – it’s so foolish for people to submit, wait, watch, and complain about not being lised for a month, 3 months, 8 months, 2 years… GOD! It’s just a dumb link… in the 2 years you steamed over no action — you could have bookmarks 1000 pages of your domain and been near #1 for any term you set your mind to.

    I don’t edit because I’m a SEO in need of links for client (or myself) I edit because it’s great to be a part of something “BIGGER THAN YOUSELF”… I post at SEOChat for the same reason.

    There isn’t any “murky areas” for me and there isn’t any conflict of interest issues either… On accepting an editorship I agreed to obey the material guidelines as written and in the spirit in which they are written… “if I can’t… I MUST Resign”… it’s that simple.

  79. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    By the way, Chelsie — I don’t understand your complaint anyway. You sound as if you’re complaining that your site isn’t listed. But you also sound as if you’re saying it is listed, and is getting great traffic from DMOZ.

    Rather confusing …

    CAM

  80. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    It’s not listed. This is internal traffic to the domain from thier system.

    B. It’s not a shopping site. You buy nothing on my site. People write articles good and bad.

    C. It’s a review site and It should be included in Entertainment / Reviews

    D. We applied 5 times and never a single reply nor inclusion.

    E. I’m really curious to see what DMOZ has to say about the people who are extorting funds to keep a listing in DMOZ .. That’s the most interesting part here for me. I could care less if DMOZ adds me.. however It would be nice for an inclusion since it’s worthy and was applied for. If they’d care to just clarify instead of beating around in circles I’d be as said more than happy to discuss removing my article. I’m quite sure if they were serious about clearing this mess up they’d be hunting vigorously for the people who’s been accepting and offering bribes for inclusion. I won’t state all DMOZ editors are bad apples because just like anything they aren’t however one bad apple can spoil the whole box.

    I still have no idea where you get SHOPPING from and actually quite offended almost like you catagorize shopping because I’m female.

  81. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    Quoting from a prominent place on the front page of your site:

    GetSuckered.com specializes in offering customers quality baking supplies.

    That’s a shopping site, by DMOZ’s definition.

    Again, if you don’t know that, you have no basis for yelping.

    Now, I’m assuming you know enough to describe your own website properly. If not, there’s a whole different kind of problem here.

    CAM

  82. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    And by the way — I learned about the Shopping ghetto the hard way from one or two female editors. I still don’t like that outcome — a site offering an inexpensive informational book was classified as being in shopping, rather than in the area of the information covered — but those are the (current) rules.

    CAM

  83. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    Looking again at your site, I find references to “Shopping cart” and “Need help with your order?”

    I’m finding it VERY hard to believe that you don’t offer anything for sale there.

    CAM

  84. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    What are you talking about? Are you looking at the right site?

    http://www.Suckered.Us … The site you’re looking at is the only site listed on dmoz with the word suckered in it.

  85. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    I was referring to the getsuckered site whose URL you posted above.

    As for this new URL you just posted, which now seems to be what you’re talking about — it’s tough to figure out where it should go in DMOZ, if at all. It’s not really a reviews site. It’s more like a voting game. But I edit in Games, and I’m pretty sure there isn’t a great place for it there.

    Maybe Society/Issues/Online Issues Polls?

    I don’t know. It’s pretty lightweight in terms of information provided, nor is it obviously a recreational site. It may be hard to find a category where an editor would agree it deserves to be listed.

    CAM

  86. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    Maybe Society/Issues/Online Issues Polls?

    I would think again Entertainment / Reviews
    however perhaps Maybe Society/Issues/Online Issues Polls?

    I’m quite sure it qualifies for either section. Any suggestions then since you are an editor there? Perhaps you may contact someone internal and we can discuss proper placement of my site and the link removal?. I can see that you’re obviously an editor with some tact. This is appreciated.

    admin @ suckered.us is where I can be contacted.

  87. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    http://www.Suckered.Us … The site you’re looking at [[[is the only site listed on dmoz]]] with the word suckered in it.

    If it’s listed on dmoz – what’s the problem?

    I’m pretty good at deciphering what people mean when they don’t know proper terminology but you clearly state http://www.Suckered.Us is listed on dmoz… don’t you?

  88. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    No it’s not. GetSuckered is … http://www.Suckered.Us should be and has been applied for repeatedly and no replies.
    I’m just curious as to why no one has ever added it after the repeated submissions.

    Sorry for the wording if it was confusing. http://www.Suckered.Us is not listed at all in DMOZ

  89. AnthonyBy Anthony on 29 August, 2007

    Rand, I have to say a I am a bit surprised by your comment:

    “I’m not sure why that’s so bad, though – Yahoo! is a for-pay directory, and most of the others are pay-to-play as well.”

    You’re kidding, right? Yahoo is a company providing services. Paying DMOZ editors under the table is enabling the corruption. AOL should be ashamed to have ownership of this. I am even more sorry to see that no one has the courage to expose this dark side of AOL.

  90. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    There’s a general suggestion from DMOZ that submitters be careful about figuring out which category their site belongs in. That advice applies triple to a site like yours, that isn’t easy to categorize.

    Now, in my personal opinion, the paradigm of a site belonging in one and only one category is obsolete. But if you want to be listed in today’s DMOZ, that’s part of today’s paradigm.

    CAM

  91. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    And by the way, Chelsie — based on the communication clarity you have (not) shown in this thread, I would hope that your applications to be an editor would continue to be turned down.

    The hostility you’ve shown is not uncommon. The inability to make yourself understood, however, would be pretty unusual in the ODP.

    CAM

  92. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    OK Cam acceptable answer.
    Next question.

    As an experienced DMOZ editor in “your” opinion then where should this site be applied for to have inclusion. I will attempt in the spot.

  93. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    By the way. For the record. I’m far from hostile Cam. however I do not like scandal. No one does. I simply required answers. Forgive my bluntness. It’s very decent of you to speak as openly as you are about certain things. Most of the editors are likely hiding from this it would seem.

  94. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    I’m going to start with the unhelpful answers “I don’t know” and “Nowhere near any place I usually edit” (which is basically in Computers and Games).

    If the correct place is “Society” — and I think it is — that section is well-nigh incomprehensible to anybody who doesn’t have experience with it because, following the lead of Usenet, it’s kind of a catch-all hodge-podge.

    That said — the site is all about polls, so I’d look for a category with “polls” in its name, perhaps the one I mentioned above.

    Good luck,

    CAM

  95. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    Thank you Cam I will submit in those two and post results.

  96. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    Submission Received

    Your site submission has been received.

    An editor will review your submission for inclusion in the directory.

    Once your site has been accepted into the Open Directory, it may take anywhere from 2 weeks to several months for your site to be listed on partner sites which use the Open Directory data, such as AOL Search, AltaVista, HotBot, Google, Lycos, Netscape Search, etc. We make updates of the data available weekly, but each partner has their own update schedule

  97. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    Oh I forgot to post where applied.

    http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Online_Issues_Polls/

    Thanks for the help Curt.

  98. fathomBy fathom on 29 August, 2007

    [[[By the way. For the record. I’m far from hostile Cam. however I do not like scandal. No one does. I simply required answers. Forgive my bluntness. ]]]

    Ya many time by pointed responses give an impression of being pissed off… but it rarely (if ever) is a case of disgruntled dialog.

    I too am “blunt” to ensure my correspondence is understood ans meant.

    To direct address your listing concerns… it is unfortunately truth that “most submissions go without any action”… and that has more to do with timings and personal desires than any form of corruption.

    Few editors have “unlimited personal time” to categorically review a domain at any give moment. From experience when I have but a few minutes to spare (and not enough time to do a full review)… I’d first:

    1. comb the quene for duplicate submissions and delete the dupliciates (this is the easiest challenge.

    2. quick review of inappropriate listing for this category ( e.g. a retail store for consumers is not a B2B manufacturer nor supplier for other business) these is “almost as easy to sweep out to more appropriate categories… but you do need to do a “review” so they are more time challenging.

    3. noted domains – a noted domain is easy to stop and requires absolutely no thought on my part… a Meta (senior editor) has previously weighed in on the “do not list” and no matter how I feel about the domain “I cannot list”.

    4. what’s left are reviewable domains and these a(in my areas of editorship take 2-3 hours to complete ‘each’. Noting that I do have a life outside of opd so I tend to “review” 3-4 domains in a month and in that it is about 1 1/2 business days of freely offered time.

    There is no question in my mind … the best approach for listing is “get involved”… but to do this you do need to do your homework… an editorship application isn’t just something you “throw together” since that action tend to suggest that’s how you would approach your editing duties… (e.g. not very professionally).

  99. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    Fathom you really don’t know me. This isn’t a Chelsie Bash. It’s a dmoz.org scandal post.

    I’m just here asking questions about why my listing wasn’t accepted and supporting website owners as a whole in asking the big questions. If you think Suckered.us is my only website it’s an incorrect assumption. I’ve over 3200 domains total.

    “Why are Dmoz editors taking bribes to get people listed?”
    Oh and a second question particular to shoemoney.

    “Why was he being extorted to come up with 5k to keep his listing?”

    Those few questions are pretty easy really.

    As for my own submission, perhaps I was in the wrong catagory which was pointed out. I’ve just submitted in the correct one according to Curt which he suggested.

    I might ask the comments stay on topic?

  100. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    You’re welcome, Chelsie. I do hope that I misread you, and that you only applied in one category. :)

    By the way — if anybody EVER feels that they should be the one exception to the rule “Don’t apply in more than one category”, then DEFINITELY add a note a saying what other category you’ve applied to. That way, there’s at least a CHANCE the dual submission won’t backfire on you.

    Re fathom’s note — I, too, tend to focus on the listings I think will be easier. In part, that’s by category; I’m much more up to date in my history categories right now than in my blogs ones, because they’re easier for all sorts of reasons. Blogs have the deeplinking issue I cited above; blogs commonly meander among topics, making them hard to categorize; the correct category for a blog may not exist, and it’s a hassle to get it created; and deciding which blogs are just plain good enough to be included can be tricky. None of those problems are present to the same degree in the history cats (I deeplink there too, but nobody seems to think I’m violating the guidelines when I do, presumably because that’s obviously needed to get truly unique factual content into the cats).

    Well, I did create a sample cat with some German language software history sites, and never got any attention for it, so I guess there was category-creation hassle that one time. But OTHERWISE the same problems aren’t as present. And my German is so marginal it’s not clear I should be editing in that language anyway.

    I spelled that out, by the way, NOT because it’s a guide to a typical editor (I’m about as atypical as they come), but to illustrate that every editor is different in may details, perhaps within some very broad commonalities.

    And I also hoped to illustrate how different ODP is from a service that would be geared towards serving site submitters in any kind of prompt or organized way. That’s simply not the focus. The goal is to put together a good directory, and looking at suggestions — from site owners or anybody else — is just one way to do that. Indeed, many experienced editors (me included) feel that looking at public site submissions is just about the LEAST productive way to go about building up the directory.

    I’d say that 5% of the SEO blogs I’ve added came from public submissions, except that I think that number is probably incorrectly high.

    CAM

  101. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    You misphrased the question about Shoemoney.

    A better version would be:

    “Why did Shoemoney fabricate this story? Was it to get attention, traffic, and links, or was it just to make himself look important, or was it maybe a prank with no particular business purpose at all?”

    CAM

  102. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 29 August, 2007

    By the way, I’m not aware of too many surveys on this:

    Given all the doubts about the SEO value of DMOZ at this point, how much WOULD people willingly pay for a listing, were things to change and that to become possible?

    CAM

  103. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 29 August, 2007

    Are you giving me a subject for a blogpost here? :P

  104. robjonesBy robjones on 29 August, 2007

    Easy questions Chelsea. Why was whatsisname being extorted? He wasn’t. He made an unsubstantiated claim that he was, but asked to substantiate it by dmoz management who said they’d gladly remove the offending editors, he’s suddenly out of evidence. Funny, earlier he claimed to have evidence.

    OTOH, he DID OFFER a bribe, for which he was banned from the directory. That isn’t exactly a scandal. This thread started when an editor familiar with him broke guidelines attempting to get us to lift that ban, and was removed.

    If you find it scandalous that we ban those who attempt to get editors to accept bribes, we can’t help you.

    Then again, you say you oppose extortion, but tried using it on us… ie – you’ll remove the site critical of ODP in return for (blah blah blah). So you’re willing to TRY extortion, but oppose it in others. Not the kind of behavior that makes one credible.

    We take extortion and bribery seriously. If not this editor would still be with us as there would have been no ban in place. You OTOH seem to think of them in relative terms. Save the protests, your actions speak for you, but not highly so.

  105. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 29 August, 2007

    I’ve applied in the ONE catagory Curt as you mentioned.

    You misphrased the question about Shoemoney.

    [quote]A better version would be:

    “Why did Shoemoney fabricate this story? Was it to get attention, traffic, and links, or was it just to make himself look important, or was it maybe a prank with no particular business purpose at all?�[/quote]

    I’m still not conviced this is fabrication.

    [quote]The goal is to put together a good directory, and looking at suggestions — from site owners or anybody else — is just one way to do that.[/quote]

    Then why are some of the sites listed absolutely garbage then?

    [quote]Indeed, many experienced editors (me included) feel that looking at public site submissions is just about the LEAST productive way to go about building up the directory.
    [/quote]

    So what is the most productive way then since you don’t look at submissions? Checking paypal? Sorry if you want to mistake my meanings in words you honestly should check your own.

    [quote]By the way, I’m not aware of too many surveys on this:

    Given all the doubts about the SEO value of DMOZ at this point, how much WOULD people willingly pay for a listing, were things to change and that to become possible?
    [/quote]

    A good price if it was a set price and company geared and not by individual. If the cost was the same for all and public it might be something DMOZ could change. I for one wouldn’t hesitate a paid inclusion if it weren’t scandalous.

  106. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    That insult was uncalled for, Chelsie. Please don’t ask me again for advice about your own sites or work.

    The single best way I find listable sites is to include ones I already know and think well of. However, that has obvious limitations in terms of quantity. ;)

    The three runners-up in my editing are:

    1. Generic links from other sites in the area (obviously a biggie in blogs categories).
    2. Generic use of search engines (I’m something of an expert searcher, even if The Spider’s Apprentice is now years out of date).
    3. “Best site” rankings, when I come across credible ones (as has happened a few times in the search/SEO area, and once, of all things, in the area of enterprise storage).

    Other editors in other categories — especially Regional — may use different approaches.

    As for why there are lousy listings — people are stupid. And lazy. And clueless. And rushed. Certain listing policies are misguided as well. All those reasons will explain MANY more bad listings, I think, than can be accurately attributed to corruption or other serious bias.

    And that just explains the listings that were lousy when they first went in, not the ones that went bad over time and haven’t been weeded out.

  107. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    Anyhows Curt since you’re calling people “stupid. And lazy. And clueless” I’m withdrawing from this conversation and waiting to see the result of my submission. I will be posting whether or not it was approved in a non biased fashion on the DMOZ.org website since it’s been submitted to the correct catagory.

    I guess time will tell what happens to DMOZ and which direction it goes. You’ve been fed public opinion and I’m not just representing myself here. I’m speaking for developers worldwide. This entire post is being followed from Digg’s front page, my site and many others now.

    I honestly believe the best route for DMOZ to follow would be adding a legitimate pay per inclusion system if it’s to continue and suspend any editor accepting or soliciting bribes immediately.

    I personally do not feel that a professional directory full of supposed professional editors can or should rule in one site and rule out another based on just one personal opinion do to likes and dislikes and do so in a fair inclusion. There are so many variables that could get a site included or non included unfairly that make this entire system seem in shambles. These are the points people are making.

    If the DMOZ system is currently corrupt and no changes are made extinction is inevitable.

  108. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    “Stupid”, “lazy”, and “clueless” were adjectives for people who do particularly bad jobs of editing.

    And I don’t know where you got the idea that the directory was supposedly full of professional editors. We’re unpaid part-timers, which sure sounds like amateurism to me.

    I also don’t know that being fair to sites or site owners is important in all categories. It’s surely important in ones that don’t have enough sites. But when there are way too many good candidates, an unfair or arbitary selection from among the good ones may make for an excellent overall set of listings.

    CAM

  109. robjonesBy robjones on 30 August, 2007

    Chelsea says
    “I’m not just representing myself here. I’m speaking for developers worldwide.”

    Reply
    LOL. Think so? I know plenty of web developers sure they can speak for themselves and who’ve never heard of you, much less given you their proxy.

    Chelsea says
    This entire post is being followed from Digg’s front page, my site and many others now.

    Reply
    Here, have a seat on the couch. Now when did the delusions of grandeur actually begin for you? Let’s explore… How do you feel about your mother?

    Chelsea says
    I personally do not feel that a professional directory full of supposed professional editors can or should…

    Reply
    Whoah there sweetpea. You do realize that we’re volunteers, right? Since when was a volunteer a “profession”. Do you even read this drivel you’re typing?

    Chelsea continued
    …rule in one site and rule out another based on just one personal opinion do to likes and dislikes and do so in a fair inclusion.

    Reply
    Chelsea, when you are the guy volunteering your time you can make the judgment calls. Meantime those that do them have guidelines to follow and a certain amount of editorial discretion. If no discretion was needed, a bot could simply include ALL sites it finds. We try to do some weeding.

    If you just want a list of sites, you have as much right to start a directory of your own as the guys that started this one. If as your posts indicate you’d really just rather gripe and make unsubstantiated accusations… good luck finding the audience you crave, but we can’t solve problems of that nature.

  110. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    By the way, I hope I didn’t give the impression that gracious civility was a requirement for being a DMOZ editor. It isn’t. If it were, neither robjones nor I would still have ODP privileges … :)

    CAM

  111. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    [quote]Chelsea says
    “I’m not just representing myself here. I’m speaking for developers worldwide.�

    Reply
    LOL. Think so? I know plenty of web developers sure they can speak for themselves and who’ve never heard of you, much less given you their proxy.[/quote]

    And I’d want their proxy why? I bet they’ve also paid you to be their DMOZ friend no doubt”

    Chelsea says
    This entire post is being followed from Digg’s front page, my site and many others now.

    Reply
    Here, have a seat on the couch. Now when did the delusions of grandeur actually begin for you? Let’s explore… How do you feel about your mother?

    [quote]Grandeur? I have more marketing power in my left finger than you in your entire body. Don’t mistake being a simple minded DMOZ editor with being anything but. I on the other hand have been actually successful at developing MANY websites without the need for DMOZ. How do I feel about my mother. Frankly dislike her. As for having a seat on the couch. No I believe I’ll sit right where I am and not take any $$%# from a person like you who clearly is trying to avert your current problems my way.

    [quote]Chelsea says
    I personally do not feel that a professional directory full of supposed professional editors can or should…

    Reply
    Whoah there sweetpea. You do realize that we’re volunteers, right? Since when was a volunteer a “profession�. Do you even read this drivel you’re typing?[/quote]

    Great you’re a volunteer. That much is obvious. That’s plenty reason to take bribes because AOL isn’t paying you correct? I’ve volunteered at big sisters. Does it mean I can extort parents to pay 5k to keep their kids happy?

    [quote]Chelsea continued
    …rule in one site and rule out another based on just one personal opinion do to likes and dislikes and do so in a fair inclusion.

    Reply
    Chelsea, when you are the guy volunteering your time you can make the judgment calls. Meantime those that do them have guidelines to follow and a certain amount of editorial discretion. If no discretion was needed, a bot could simply include ALL sites it finds. We try to do some weeding.

    If you just want a list of sites, you have as much right to start a directory of your own as the guys that started this one. If as your posts indicate you’d really just rather gripe and make unsubstantiated accusations… good luck finding the audience you crave, but we can’t solve problems of that nature.[/quote]

    Hey, building a directory bigger than DMOZ just isn’t a bad idea and certainly possible based on recent events at your directory. In fact I will not be suprised now if it isn’t done in a much more efficient manner than your 3 or 4 sites a month inclusion rate. Wow that’s dedication.

    And for the Record @sshole it’s Chelsie.. not Chelsea.

    How about you defend your directory now some and the fraud inside of it instead of attempting to change direction of this conversation.

  112. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    I’m not here to Gripe. I came here with VALID concerns which haven’t been addressed and still remain as unaddressed.. (DMOZ editors accepting bribes to get in to the listings as well as extorting those with current listings). I guess AOL will be involved soon enough anyhows. I’ll not be replying any further since your boat is already sinking. Enjoy the swim boys.

  113. robjonesBy robjones on 30 August, 2007

    ROFL. Actually I don’t waste a lot of time talking to obvious trolls, darlin. Got a feeling you could keep a whole battery of therapists busy. :-P

  114. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    DMOZ and the ODP have many problems.

    But rampant corruption is not one of them.

    One of the problems they DO have is the level of effort needed to fight and prevent corruption or other dishonesty. E.g., one of my recent edits was of a blog that was called something like “Organic SEO”, and started out as something to do with organs, presumably in order to build links. Then the site owner changed all the content to that of a very mediocre SEO blog, and an editor sent it over to my category. And I didn’t list it, due to its mediocrity.

    That’s a lot of wasted editor effort, and a bad listing left in the directory for a while, all because one SEO decided he wanted to build some links by being deceptive.

    That’s quite apart from a culture that has senior editors breathing down newbies necks to an arguably unhealthy extent, in no small part because of a legitimate need to watch out for bad apples.

    And despite all that, nobody even hinted at stopping me from listing blackhat sites other than Shoemoney’s, even though some of them taught about scum-of-the-earth tactics directly antithetical to the ODP’s goals.

    As for robjones’ delusions of grandeur comment — I think he was referring to the idea that, after all the other publicity (especially negative) it’s received, anybody at ODP would care about one or two MORE well-read critical web pages.

    CAM

  115. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    Whatever you figure RobJones. I bet you’re a real ladie’s man. ROTFLMAO

    Typical. When people call someone on their bullshit they actually attempt to reverse the spotlight on the other people. I’m sure I’m not the first nor the last person who will speak up.

    DMOZ is corrupt. I just proved that it’s full or arrogant, ignorant, and unremarkable people who’ve not denied but rather tried to reverse all claims of wrongdoings upon others confirming with thier hush hush emails within their own system that there’s a coverup attempt in play. It’s a little late now that you’re headline news.

    If you feel you’re the perfect duo for public relations RobJones and Curt, I personally beg to differ and honestly If I were in the head seat of DMOZ and or AOL you’d both be reprimanded to urinal disk changing duty at McDonalds.

    You’ve shown the entire watching world what the people inside DMOZ are really like. Good show.

    I’ll be truly suprised if every company you’re affiliated with in the next few weeks doesn’t drop DMOZ as any search data clearly is not viable and biased using DMOZ.

    You go ahead and attempt to mock me and I’ll sit here laughing and continue to show the world what you’re all really about. It’s not just me making you people the news. I’m just passing the information along.

    Regards.

  116. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    I retract my comment about you CAM / Curt. You’re actually half decent.
    RobJones You’re a real dick.

  117. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    I said I wouldn’t help you any more, but:

    I see that one of the sites listed in that category asks whether the US should go to war in Iraq. This suggests to me that the category is not being actively edited.

    As for the matter of you reapplying as editor — you’re required to list all 3200 of your site affiliations as you do. Did you REALLY go through all that before? If not, that’s a killer reason you would have been turned down — getting caught violating the disclosure rules.

    CAM

  118. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    PS People at ODP should care. If information is deemed in worldwide news as unviable and biased and it affects multibillion dollar companies IE Google / AOL etc the effects towards ODP / DMOZ could be staggering.

    I’ve offered my personal outside opinion on a proper paid inclusion and whatnot. I don’t run your company but I do know what I’d do if this were me.

  119. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    Curt my domains are largely undeveloped (Parked) I’ve no intention on submitting any undeveloped. I’m building one site at a time, and I honestly wouldn’t include my own sites in my area for fairness. I do understand what you are saying though. Fair enough. I’d not want to be deemed unfair either. I simply was hoping to have my one site listed when I applied and offered to edit the area since it did seem like a smaller section.

  120. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    Anyhows I really am done this debate. Curt you’re a half decent guy. I can’t judge you and honestly retract any heated comments I may have made misdirected towards you in any way. RobJones well to me you’re a different case but I’m done typing in your direction. I had a few specific questions when I came. I simply wanted some answers. Curt you’ve been helpful which is what you should be doing. In my opinion you’d be a good example of an editor. RobJones on the other hand is an example I’d go so far as to say the exact opposite. I can’t say this as fact. Perhaps Robjones is a good editor and not happy that his Directory as a whole is being slammed? That’s always possible too. Like I said originally one or two bad apples can ruin the whole box. I appreciate anything I learned here about the process and just gave my honest advice / opinions on how to add paid inclusion which is completely acceptable without the possibility of scandal and fraud. That’s all. I came for no other reason and will be leaving now for the evening. I’m not going to flame war with either of you. My problem isn’t personal with either of you as I know you’re volunteers for something much larger. It’s not personal and I’d like to keep it that way along with the flaming back and forth if that’s acceptable. The question left is how DMOZ will take this happening and use it for the good of everything and change.

    I’ll just sit back and wait to see if I ever get the inclusion. I really honestly wouldn’t want to edit at DMOZ now after all of this but I still think DMOZ if there is some change can hold it together and advance and not die off.

    Those are just my closing thoughts to this all.

    CM

  121. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 30 August, 2007

    You DMOZ guys are lower than low. For the record idiots, this entire post *was* on the front page of Digg, and while I haven’t checked, I’m sure it’s being discussed on Chelsie’s site and many others now as well. How does her saying so warrant the reply where you put her on “the couch” and asked here questions about her mother? What an @asshole, indeed.

    I knew the whole conversation was devolving when you called her “sweetie.” I’m tired of the misogynistic BS that you guys give women in tech and web development. If Chelsie had acted airheaded or stupid here, one thing, but point for point she gave it back to you guys level-headed, so you put her on “the couch” and called her “sweetie” and finally a “troll” not knowing how else to recover your non-existent composure. I’m outraged actual DMOZ editors would actually comport themselves like this publically.

    Down with DMOZ: it’s over, it’s dead, it’s gone.

    Here: let’s all make this the best free directory in the world any way we can:

    http://bessd.com

    Yes I’ve had my moments with DMOZ too, but I’m done with them.

    Down with biased, opiniated editors. Judge a site on it’s merits, not on how you *feel* about it, or how much someone is paying you to feel that way, for Christ’s sake.

    Down with DMOZ editors’ arrogant, unprofessional attitudes. I don’t care if you “work” for DMOZ for free…boo-hoo. Oh, and can you guys estimate how many sites you could have reviewed for inclusion while you were jerking off in this thread?

    Your comportment as editors and in this comment thread shows your heads are huge from the ego-trip being a DMOZ editor has you all on. Yowzee, I’m a DMOZ editor, now everyone can suck my…if I was in charge of DMOZ I’d fire ALL of you, every last one.

  122. murphyBy murphy on 30 August, 2007

    ** Thank you Cam I will submit in those two and post results. **

    Ahem.

    The ODP guidelines say “submit once to the ONE best category”.

    It is this type of disregard of the submission guidelines that really upsets editors.

    That, and people who even after being advised not to, keep on re-submitting again and again, pushing their suggestion to the back of the list every time.

  123. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    Wow Thank you Marah.

    Apparantly us “airheaded” “couched” “trolls” aren’t so stupid at all are we? I mean, here these boys are working free and collecting bribes all around to support a lifestyle where they maybe edit/include a couple sites per month and then there’s people like me and probably you, who work 20 hours per day 7 days per week on projects to bring in 6 to 7 figures per year consistantly.

    Who are the real “airheaded” “couched” “trolls” ?

    I have to laugh **LAUGH**

    Marah add me to msn on that address posted earlier!

    Sincerely

  124. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    I was just reading a post in the DMOZ editor forums the other day where it was pointed out we can’t win. If we don’t address people in the outside world, they say we’re secretive. If we do, they complain that we should have been editing and adding more sites instead.

    Marah, you fit into that like clockwork.

    As for thinking robjones sexist, I wouldn’t know about that. Actually, and on a frequent basis, he’s inexcusably insulting to people of both sexes.

    At least he has a sense of humor about it, unlike one prolific but acerbic former editor I tangled with …

    CAM

  125. fathomBy fathom on 30 August, 2007

    Curt Monash [[“Why did Shoemoney fabricate this story?�]]

    I actually take great offense to this comment. How have your proven that the story is a fabrication?

    You realize ‘until proof is offered that it was a fabrication’ you are spining false evidence to support you own position.

    Don’t just assume… KNOW!

  126. fathomBy fathom on 30 August, 2007

    Chelsie Murphy [[DMOZ is corrupt. I just proved that it’s full or arrogant, ignorant, and unremarkable people who’ve not denied but rather tried to reverse all claims of wrongdoings upon others confirming with thier hush hush emails within their own system that there’s a coverup attempt in play. It’s a little late now that you’re headline news.]]

    Interesting and by a person that started posting here with:

    I’ll be happy to remove the link http://Dmoz.org.Suckered.Us when someone explains to me why I haven’t been listed in entertainment / reviews area after applying countless times.

    …that’s called “extortion” — isn’t it?

    Well — You are what you are… corrupt!

  127. robjonesBy robjones on 30 August, 2007

    LOL. Some guy claims he’s getting extorted for $5000 and provides not a smidgen of proof, even when Dmoz head of staff offered to nail the editors, and you go for it hook-line-and-sinker. All he did was cater to predisposed prejudices.

    Yes, anyone that buys off on something with no reason other than that’s what they want to believe is of vastly superior intelligence (yes, even if their spelling and grammar is a bit shaky).

    Oh well… Good luck with that exit from the thread you keep talking about Chelsie.

    BTW – I see you two girls are getting on your high horse thinking you aren’t getting enough respect. How cute.

  128. fathomBy fathom on 30 August, 2007

    Obviousluy this thread discussion has outlived its usefulness – time to bow out.

    Congratulation Joost de Valk on a successful blog baiting and bookmarking campaign… you caught my attention and that a rare feat.

    Good Luck!
    Rod (aka fathom)

  129. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Shoemoney has a disclaimer on his site saying “Everything here is a lie.”

    The story is also implausible for a variety of reasons that have been suggested.

    So yeah — I’d say the burden of proof is on him or his supporters to show that it is NOT a fabrication.

    CAM

  130. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    And by the way, I’m in the SEO business almost not at all. I run a few websites. I advise software companies on anything in marketing, SEO included. But that’s it, and it’s a pretty trivial “it.”

    Any professional SEO is welcome to visit my sites (you’d probably be most interested in http://www.texttechnologies.com), and when you stop laughing you’ll realize just how much of an SEO I am not.

    Or you can check the .edu and .mil backlinks to http://www.monash.com/spidap.html (a site about search engines) and cry over the opportunities I’m not exploiting …

    CAM

  131. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    [quote]Chelsie Murphy [[DMOZ is corrupt. I just proved that it’s full or arrogant, ignorant, and unremarkable people who’ve not denied but rather tried to reverse all claims of wrongdoings upon others confirming with thier hush hush emails within their own system that there’s a coverup attempt in play. It’s a little late now that you’re headline news.]]

    Interesting and by a person that started posting here with:

    I’ll be happy to remove the link http://Dmoz.org.Suckered.Us when someone explains to me why I haven’t been listed in entertainment / reviews area after applying countless times.

    …that’s called “extortion� — isn’t it?

    Well — You are what you are… corrupt![/quote]

    Don’t worry I won’t be removing it…

    Cry me a river.

    Arrogant assholes.

    Good luck DMOZ

    I wanted someone to prove me wrong that the accusations were false. The only thing I’ve seen here is that all the assumptions are correct and DMOZ is being edited by a bunch of asshats and people who’re collecting money for favours. Looks good on you. I really don’t give a shit now if I get listed or not. I’d rather not be associated at all.

    Shame Shame Shame.

    Enjoy your slow spiral down.

  132. robjonesBy robjones on 30 August, 2007

    Oh, was that *another* goodbye post? Dang, we’ll miss your kind words and poignant insights. Oh well.

    Adios Joost. Actually wandered in to address your questions, not get bogged down reading semi-literate rants of someone with a terminal chip on the shoulder that wanted to hijack your thread to get placement for her own site in a directory she alternately accuses of corruption and then claims is irrelevant. There’s some logic in that I’ll bet, but darn if I can find it.

    BTW Chels – Nice language there (again). So, how’s the anger management thing going? :-P

  133. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Chelsie, Chelsie, Chelsie,

    There’s not the slightest proof in this thread of CORRUPTION or anything close to it.

    There’s considerable evidence of INDIFFERENCE to your concerns and those of many other webmasters of site owners, but that’s not the same thing at all.

    Question, if you will, whether ODP has close to the volunteer staffing needed to do a current and high-quality job, under its current operating procedures.

    Question, if you will, whether anybody would care even if it did, absent a major change in what kind of information it provides users, and the tools and format it does those in.

    Question, if you will, whether such human resources as are available are being put to the best possible use.

    But successful bribery? That’s a very small problem compared to the others.

    I would not be surprised in the slightest if a few dozen or even a few hundred sites a year were bribed in. I already don’t see how the numbers would work for a few thousand to get in that way. I’m utterly confident it couldn’t be more than that. If I had to make a point estimate, I’d say 150 or so, on the theory that somebody could probably sneak in 5-10 sites a year without getting caught, and only a limited number of people have sufficiently broad privileges to edit anywhere in the directory they choose, and only a small fraction of them probably do take bribes, and anyhow somebody who asks too many folks for bribes is likely to wind up getting ratted out. (Or to put it another way — if a known website designer put 5-10 affiliated sites into DMOZ every year, nobody would mind. If it were 50-100, I’m guessing she would get clamped down on pretty hard. And even with a low total count, the sites would have to go in exactly the right categories, with the usual bland descriptions, or else the additions would be reversed. My edits of my own sites face more scrutiny than almost anything else I do, and my main business site was turned down when I submitted it even though a barely better comparable site was accepted when I submitted it at the same time.)

    Unofficial paid inclusion is really low on the list of ODP’s top problems.

    CAM

    CAM

  134. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    RobJones. If I feel the need to use profanity I’ll use it. Anger management. Hardly. I just think you’re a dick.

    CAM / Curt. I’ll not say anything I personally don’t think you’re a bad guy and you clearly admit that there’s some issues within DMOZ. I really doubt that you alone have the power to fix them though. It’s a shame.

    RobJones you’re a prime spokesman for DMOZ.
    I hope you recieve an award!

  135. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    PS RobJones why do you recon this post has so many diggs?

  136. robjonesBy robjones on 30 August, 2007

    I’m guessing it means there are more terminally gullible types that will believe any lie they’re predisposed to than smart ones that expect to be presented with credible evidence before they assume guilt.

    Why, is there a better explanation?

    You haven’t been shown any proof of corruption, but you can’t help but post accusations, the nastier the better. Gee, I can’t imagine why you got turned down to be an editor. You sound so reasonable.

  137. David MackeyBy David Mackey on 30 August, 2007

    I haven’t used DMoZ in a long time. But perhaps half a dozen years ago or more I was an editor. Eventually from lack of activity my account was made inactive. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to re-open the account. Anyways, thats besides the point.
    I think its a shame how AOL hasn’t put more resources into DMoZ. It was once the best, and it still has a reputation, even if it is quickly fading. A site redesign and communication restructuring could go a long way.

  138. robjonesBy robjones on 30 August, 2007

    You’re on the same track as we are David. It DOES need some redesign, restructuring, etc, and internally discussions of that nature are ongoing, and include new staffers the parent co recently sent over specifically for the task of revitalizing and updating the directory to make it a resource that is current with technology and changing web trends

    Obviously I don’t have access to data about past editors, but might try hitting the reinstate queue if it’s something you’d be interested in diving into. The direction is a to-be-determined thing at present, but the general consensus within the directory appears to coincide with your assessment.

  139. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    robjones pass it off as a lie. “I’m more prone to think he posted that just so he can’t be sued and now you’re all using it as an excuse for the fraud inside your circle.

    Face it your directory is bunk. It’s full of useless paid to include sites that aren’t even decent half of them. It’s also beyond outdated technologically wise.

    I really seriously expect the next big directory to not be from DMOZ .. or human edited.. What a mistake.

  140. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    As per the numbers I mentioned above, DMOZ is not “full” or close to full of paid-to-include sites. It probably has a few. That’s it.

    As for Shoemoney’s “This is all a lie” disclaimer — obviously, he’s not trying to communicate the point that EVERYTHING is a lie. But nor is he taking responsibility for being truthful.

    What’s more, whether or not he was being technically truthful, he almost certainly was misleading.

    My guess is that he was flat-out lying about the facts. If you choose to believe that he merely was engaging in gross distortion of technical truths, so be it.

    CAM

  141. robjonesBy robjones on 30 August, 2007

    LOL. Just couldn’t stand it that there might be some positive discussion here eh Chelsie?

    Notwithstanding that earlier you were trying to get your own site listed in that fraudulent outdated useless bunk of a directory, I won’t let logic cloud a good story.

    Tell you what, please stick around and continue to alternate aimlessly between self indulgent fantasy and unwarranted profanity. No doubt it will be popular with digg, which of course proves its value.

  142. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 30 August, 2007

    Yeah robjones until I realized what the majority of editors are like not including Curt. Or at least those posting.

    I’m not even going to bother bickering with you robjones. You’re already clearly showing what you’re like.

  143. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 30 August, 2007

    So… Are we all happy now? :) It too you a while didn’t it? :P

  144. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Well, I’m happy that robjones is here.

    He’s one of the few people on the planet that makes me sound diplomatic by comparison.

    :)

    CAM

  145. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 30 August, 2007

    Hehe Curt, you’re quite diplomatic, though straight :)

  146. Jake CopBy Jake Cop on 30 August, 2007

    Chelsie: You’re better off leaving Rob Jones and the self important Dmoz editors to defend their own little bubble and ignore them. After all, for them to feel important in the corrupt little world they’ve created they require you, me and everyone else on here to actually give a toss about them.

    Like the proverbial imaginary friend, if we all ignore Dmoz and leave it be; it will surely die away.

    Dmoz feeds off your anger, don’t feed it.

  147. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Jake,

    You’re projecting. It’s a certain group of website owners who feed off of attention at any price. Shoemoney is actually a prime example of same, as are many DMOZ haters.

    The ODP, by way of contrast, ranks traffic generation or other attention-gathering distressingly low on its own list of priorities.

    CAM

  148. murphyBy murphy on 30 August, 2007

    The site was banned from being listed by the ODP way back in 2005. That ban was a result of the ODP having been offered a bribe to list it.

    So, how can a site that is never going to be listed, ever have threats made against it to have it removed from the directory?

    It can’t.

    Mr. Shoe is pissed that the ODP will not list his sites and so invents a story about threats and extortion for reasons that we will probably never know.

  149. Clint DixonBy Clint Dixon on 30 August, 2007

    OK someone stop this lol.

    1. Who needs DMOZ for rankings? If you do…you should quit!

    2. Shoemoney is a publicity hound and will do anything, include lie to get traffic to his blog. Did you ever wonder why he feels the need to post half naked women there?

    3. I like the DMOZ editor for SEO blogs “running out to find the best blogs”

    4. This is a great one

    “Joost de Valk I can though, I said something like “are we so childish as to prevent people from being listed because they offered a bribe once?â€?

    Uhh yes Joost….and we also tend to try to keep drunk drivers off the road and killers behind bars, gamblers out of sports…odd thing when laws and rules are broken…. Yes there are consequences…..even if you are shoemoney….

    This one is even more alarming


    Curt Monash

    2. Back in January, when I got assigned the category, I went on a binge and added the several dozen best SEO blogs I could quickly find. This was easy, as there are various rankings of same, and lots of cross-listings.”

    You went on a binge??? I thought that was a bad thing ???

    You edit the SEO category and “QUICKLY” added the best SEO blogs you could find???

    Did you do a google searh for those?

    How can you edit an SEO blog category if you had to go find the SEO Blogs to add??

    Uhh seobook.com seobythesea.com etc didn’t seem one of the logical choices.

    Well this is a waste of most peoples time….

    Peace!

  150. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Clint,

    If you don’t like some of my individual listings — well, that’s why there are a lot of others too. There are differing opinions. Different styles. Different emphases. On-page focus, off-page focus. Target audience of pros, target audience of random website owners. And so on.

    And that’s how it should be.

    CAM

  151. Clint DixonBy Clint Dixon on 30 August, 2007

    CAM

    Never saw your listings….again its DMOZ and as such it gets a nano second of my time at most.

    What concerns me is you appear not to be an SEO so it would seem a bit odd you would run such a category.

    Poor business methodology..

    In real world I go to Home Depot for plumbing help….now this will seems a bit odd but in the plumbing department they typically have ex-plumbers working there to help customers.

    Do you see my dilema…why is DMOZ allowing someone with no SEO knowledge to build a category they no nothing about?

    How could this help anyone??

    It would be like allowing me to edit the Orchestra section of the directory.

    Another thing you mentioned is “quickly” as such that often indicates “quality” was sacrificed to get the job done “quickly”

    It may be best to let sleeping dogs sleep so to speak ;->

  152. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Clint,

    Can you suggest a directory that is built from greater expertise? Or a search engine relying on link popularity with greater average expertise?

    CAM

  153. Clint DixonBy Clint Dixon on 30 August, 2007

    Actually the Yahoo Directory often produces better results than DMOZ. I also understand Cha Cha seems to be an up and coming human edited directory.

    As for relying on link popularity and search engines, I think that is most of the battle in the first place. Including the silly one regarding Shoe & DMOZ

    Now if we pull link popularity out and use some other form of document scoring LSI for example… with less of a bias factor to eliminate the vulnerabilities, and you’ve got the next Google.

    Peace!

  154. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Yahoo is of course a worthy competitor for DMOZ. But on the occasions I’ve compared the two recently, DMOZ has usually looked better.

    As for ChaCha — I couldn’t find much about it. Is this year-old forum post (still) fairly accurate? http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=13731&page=5

  155. harryBy harry on 30 August, 2007

    * * It would be like allowing me to edit the Orchestra section of the directory. * *

    Could you recognise the official site of the New York Philharmonic as opposed to an affilaite link farm spam site?

    Could you recognise the web scribblings on behalf of the kiddies orchestra at your local school, as opposed to an auto-generated page of junk?

    If so, then you already have about a quarter of what you would need to be an editor for the category; and about half of what you need you learn about by reading the guidelines and by actually editing.

    The other quarter? The people who review editor applications can see whether you have any idea about that. It is mostly stuff that can’t be learnt by rote. You either have it or you don’t.

  156. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 30 August, 2007

    Actually, a lot of the people who dislike DMOZ have business models that depend on confusion between informative sites and low-content/high-advertising ones.

    CAM

  157. Clint DixonBy Clint Dixon on 30 August, 2007

    Cam

    I think your going for a stretch there. In all actuality I see very little speak on business issues within the internet.

    I see a lot of how much revenue people earn, but few understand what a profit & loss statement are, what a gross margin is, and that there is such a thing as paid advertising, which can help any business grow, done properly. But thats a different rant.

    I think that whenever there is a chief, and indian concept at work in a directory, or search engine, there will always be exceptions to the rules.

    If you look at things unbiased, the more community based method, like Wiki which worked for a while and replaced DMOZ I think in overall value.

    Certainly within Googles eyes DMOZ reputation has dropped as Wiki has risen, and which is more authoritative than DMOZ apparently, given the current placement of Wiki in Google SERPS.

    Why it worked was it was hard to game. That isn’t true any longer, but then again there isn’t much in life that is pure.

  158. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    “LOL. Just couldn’t stand it that there might be some positive discussion here eh Chelsie?

    “Notwithstanding that earlier you were trying to get your own site listed in that fraudulent outdated useless bunk of a directory, I won’t let logic cloud a good story.

    “Tell you what, please stick around and continue to alternate aimlessly between self indulgent fantasy and unwarranted profanity. No doubt it will be popular with digg, which of course proves its value.”

    If there is a “fraudulent outdated useless category” in DMOZ why doesn’t DMOZ eliminate it? I guess you have to put all your handshake deals, friends, friend-of-a-friends and PayPal contributors somewhere, though, so you guys hang onto as many “fraudulent out of date useless categories” as you can, don’t you? (The highest bidders get better placement, though, I’m sure.)

    There has been enough innuendo and gossip among the editors of DMOZ here to remove all doubt of whether there is fraud and corruption in DMOZ or not. No, I did not know it before I read this comment thread, which I found after a short cruise of Digg last night. I know it now, and I can’t say I’m surprised – just dissapointed; another idealistic fantasy of mine (that there could be an ethical *and* popular directory, even if it’s run by the likes of AOL) blown clear to bits in one post by Joost de Valk. Such is the way of most dreams.

    I’m suprised at all the people saying here “Oh, the DMOZ haters, they talk like this…” How do you think people come to hate DMOZ? How do you think people come to hate *any* company? They don’t hate for nothing. Haters start off liking something only to be bitterly disappointed, frustrated, *unheard*, disprespected, and ignored down the road, as the company’s corruption and arrogance increases steadily along with it’s prestige.

    These attitudes are not hating for the sake of hating; they come from bitter struggle and dissapoinment from an entity that does not show compassion, that won’t listen to it’s users or it’s customers, and won’t bend, and change and flex with the times and people’s needs. Look at what starts it before you dismiss unhappy people in this thread with one snide word: “Haters.”

    Like me, these people gave getting listed in DMOZ every best shot. I wasn’t quite as out-of-the-loop as Chelsie was when I applied: I followed all of Netscape’s/AOL’s/DMOZ’s rules and directions. I gave my electronic signature to the part where you sign away your copyright, everything, my heart in my throat and almost feeling like a fool.

    I did that 4 times in a little over a year, following all of DMOZ’s rules for submission, not bugging the editors, applying to the one best category for my blog, and only applying to that one every single time, and you know what I got for it. No listing, and editors who would not respond to me when I waited the correct amount of time before asking about the status of my submission.

    I would read the DMOZ discussion boards to kill time back then and the stuffy, imperialistic attitudes of the editors to webmasters inquiring about their submissions would amaze me. I took to lurking because I was sure in that environment I could only get shot down, too…

    I read one thread over there just the other day; an editor took an applicant to task for bolding one word of his inquiry. He used bolding to highlight one word: the responding editor called his attitude “out-of-control” for doing it. It wasn’t even a bad word that he bolded. The applicant only bolded it to make a point. That’s when I said, “OK, it’s these guys who are “out of control”, not us; their egos run away with them; they’re just tormenting these people on purpose…”

    I gave up on the DMOZ game the day I wrote an article about it on my site bemoaning the fact that I’d applied plenty of times over the years and got nowhere; I asked readers to leave me comments telling me where else I could list my blog, and overnight, the owner of besd.com told me to apply to his free, open directory, and my blog has been listed there ever since. No, Besd doesn’t have the “link-weight” of a DMOZ yet, but it’s honest-to-goodness a great directory to be listed in, integral, and has value; the last time I checked (maybe a month ago) there were no link farm listings there, no garbage among the results.

    I moved on and I’m glad I did. There is a better directory, and soon DMOZ will go the way of Overture, InfoSpace, and every has-been out there. I agree with the commenter way above who said “Google should just cut DMOZ free” so we can all move on; couldn’t agree more.

  159. aaronBy aaron on 31 August, 2007

    – where you sign away your copyright, everything –

    You don’t sign away the copyright of your site, You just give permission for ODP to write a title and description for your site, and for them to use or not use the one that you suggested, at their discretion. You don’t really give anything away at all.

  160. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    http://www.bessed.com

    Sorry I screwed up the spelling of it every time.

  161. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    @arron:

    If you read that part of it it’s enough to make a person crap their pants. I read it every time I signed it; many articles have been written on Internet about the wording of that particular document. I almost didn’t go through with it I don’t know how many times because I was scared of what it said, plus my blog is anti-company (AOL, in this case) but fair is fair; I write help articles for people who want to quit AOL (how to do it) and thought my site should stand a chance. So I got up my nerve and did it knowing my chances were about slim to none. That was an upsetting time for me (well, every time I applied to DMOZ was, for obvious reasons)…I’m glad it’s in the past.

  162. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 31 August, 2007

    PS. Why don’t you DMOZ editors do a search on google for DMOZ.org and see what comes up … From Page 7 to Page 2 and climbing. I suppose a site like mine has no weight to it hey?

    http://dmoz.suckered.us

    I believe it’s coming up above blogs.dmoz.org

  163. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 31 August, 2007
  164. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    I really don’t think that many people will use your site as input to a decision as to whether they should, for example, search for information on DMOZ. AOL, the chief resource provider, is unlikely to be swayed in its decision-making by yet one more insulting web page. Etc. The idea that anybody at the ODP would care more than a little bit about your page/site/whatever on DMOZ — well, that’s probably where the highly undiplomatic robjones got his “delusions of grandeur” idea from.

  165. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Marah,

    Your fake quotes around “fraudulent” — twice in two sentences — are dishonest in the extreme. Ditto the not just unfounded but also absurd charges you made in connection with them.

    Please don’t talk again about ethics anywhere that I’m reading. The idea of you lecturing anybody on ethics after that little display makes me feel like puking.

    CAM

  166. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Marah,

    http://www.bessed.com doesn’t look listable.

    In essence, it’s a directory. And there’s a rule of thumb that DMOZ doesn’t make new listings of directories with less than — I think it is — 10-20,000 entries.

    Exceptions can be made to rules of thumb like that, but that’s an extremely mediocre site at this point in time, so I don’t know why it would catch any breaks.

    I also think exceptions might be made for focused, best-of-breed subject-specific directories, but of course that’s not what you have there at all.

    At least, those are my thoughts. I don’t edit in any sections where I’d need to consider listing directories, so I haven’t bothered to be perfectly sure of my detailed facts on the subject.

    CAM

  167. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    I was quoting Rob Jones, who was quoting Chelsie, didn’t you read the thread?

    The only part I honestly messed up was, I read Chelsie’s and Rob Jones comments too fast and thought the word they used was “categories” instead of “directories”. I didn’t catch it until after I wrote my reply, which is what I get for being hasty (also the reason my spelling sucks in this thread; I usually do a better job unless I’m emailing someone, in which case my spelling is atrocious because email is so time-consuming that I don’t proofread like I should).

    Please don’t tell me where or how to write my comments, though. That’s up to the blogger who runs this site. He may edit, delete, or ban my comments at his discretion; is that correct? Or are you actually a co-author of this blog?

    If you and Joost de Valk work on this blog together, my apologies for not knowing any better.

    Otherwise go stick your attitude where the sun doesn’t shine, Sunshine.

  168. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    “Marah,

    “www.bessed.com doesn’t look listable.

    “In essence, it’s a directory. And there’s a rule of thumb that DMOZ doesn’t make new listings of directories with less than — I think it is — 10-20,000 entries blah blah blah blah blah…”

    Save your thoughts for the people who are idiots. I’m not your target audience, dear. I never for one second in any comment I wrote suggested that DMOZ should list bessed.com. Get that through your thick head (are you using it to store old rags or what?):

    I mentioned bessed.com as an *alternative* to DMOZ, not as an a contender for listing in DMOZ.

    I can’t list it–it’s not mine. I don’t want it listed–it’s DMOZ competitor, for Christ’s sake, why would I want that?

    WTH is wrong with your reading comprehension skills? Looks like someone here needs Hooked on Phonics today; can I hook you up with a copy?

    An alternative to DMOZ, an alternative…get it now? Jesus, how I hate wasting my time on idiots.

  169. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    I did read the thread, Marah, and I just rechecked it.

    Your alleged quote is an erroneous copy of something Rob Jones said in obvious irony/sarcasm.

    Your attempt to imply that he or anybody else from ODP actually agrees with it is almost as dishonest as Shoemoney’s lie that started off this whole hullaballoo.

    What’s more, your supposed misreading makes little sense in context, casting even more of a cloud on your integrity.

    CAM

  170. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    “Chelsie..The idea that anybody at the ODP would care more than a little bit about your page/site/whatever on DMOZ — well, that’s probably where the highly undiplomatic robjones got his “delusions of grandeurâ€? idea from.”

    BS….We know where robjones got his “delusions of grandeur” theory from; from thinking that this post wasn’t on digg. It was just too damn much trouble for him to look at the bright yellow button at the top of the page and see for himself. If anyone’s suffering delusions of grandeur, it’s him. How can you speculate that robjones meant anything else besides that when you read his comment? Then again, I just pointed out quite handily that you don’t actually read any comment here so the hell with that idea.

  171. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    “Your alleged quote is an erroneous copy of something Rob Jones said in obvious irony/sarcasm.”

    It is not my alleged quote! It is a real quote from robjones, who was *really* quoting from one of Chelsie’s last comments above his.

    You *really* are proving to be an idiot, the kind who’s name is usually proceeded by the word “Village.”

  172. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Marah,

    I don’t think that at this point that hysterical insults will cover up your dishonesty.

    But you’re certainly welcome to try.

    As for your theories about what robjones meant — it’s a safe bet that I’ve read a whole lot more of his posts than you have, on a much broader variety of subjects. For now I’ll stand by my theory over yours.

    CAM

  173. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Oh, and Marah — you’ve already admitted that you yourself don’t read the comments in this thread slowly enough to actually understand what they mean. So I really don’t think you should want to engage in a flame battle on the particular terrain of who is or isn’t reading the thread carefully.

    CAM

  174. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    To say that I have no interity and shouldn’t speak of it is a bit outlandish when I was only quoting robjones, who in turn was quoting Chelsea.

    Chelsea meant it; she was sincere in every word; and she was the first one to call it an “outdated fraudulent useless bunk of a directory”.

    I agree with her now that I’ve read this thread. Ron quoted her sarcastically….didn’t I just get done saying I didn’t realize that until after I published my reply? Not that it mattered: for owning up honestly to my misunderstanding of his *intent*, you said that cast even more of a cloud on my integrity.

    The only ones showing lack of integrity here are guys like you, who tell Chelsie and me to stop commenting and then continue to reply to our comments;

    robjones, who thinks women should be subservient to him and no more than eye-candy who’s mental statuses he can poke fun at to distract from his own issues;

    The DMOZ editor who dropped into this thread anonymously to claim corruption is rampant at DMOZ but who does not offer to clear his conscience and good name by bowing out of such contratempts;

    Joost de Valk, for his bullshit idea that shoemakers’ corruption should be overlooked “at least once” for I have no idea what reason;

    Chelsie, for offering to withdraw her anti-DMOZ site *if* you guys will list a site she wants in DMOZ;

    and all the other editors in this comment thread who have clearly admitted that fraud is at least a small part of what goes on at DMOZ, and in fact admitted it is how many sites (especially link farms or sites like shoemakers, which should be taken off the Internet by heavy artillery, if necessary) get into DMOZ in the first place.

    Screw all of you. I made one lousy mistake; I misinterpreted one thing robjones wrote, and you want to get all hot and bothered about it? Go bite my ass.

  175. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Marah (and everybody else), to repeat,

    Corruption is a problem at ODP that is fought VIGOROUSLY, and indeed at high cost in terms of time, morale, and opportunity cost.

    It is my strong and half-expert opinion that this costly fight is, in terms of new listings and edits, very successful.

    Now, there’s a whole different set of problems in that DMOZ’s listings don’t change as quickly as the universe of web sites does, due to whatever combination of personnel and practices causes that gap. THAT’S the part of the common complaints that’s legit.

    The corruption complaint, however, is not.

    CAM

  176. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    “Corruption is a problem at ODP that is fought VIGOROUSLY…

    “Now, there’s a whole different set of problems in that DMOZ’s listings don’t change as quickly as the universe of web sites does…THAT’S the part of the common complaints that’s legit.

    “The corruption complaint, however, is not.”

    Huh? First you state that corruption is fought “VIGOUROUSLY.”

    Then you state that no corruption complaint is “legit”.

    If there was no corruption, there would be nothing to “fight VIGOURSLY,” would there?

    Did you graduate from the 6th grade? I’m doing a lot better here than you, Curt, in terms of overall reading comprehension (overall! pay careful attention to that word) and I did not attend a day of college.

    Stop talking out both sides of your mouth!

    God how I’d love to be a lawyer watching you in a courtroom perjure yourself like this.

    Have a good day CAM. I will not be back, and unlike Chelsea, once I *tell you* I’m doing something, goddamnit it’s done.

  177. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Marah,

    If you used a search engine, you wouldn’t have much trouble figuring whether I graduated from college. Indeed, my official bio even lists the universities I’ve taught at.

    As for the supposed contradiction in what I wrote — too bad you didn’t go to college, or get an above-average high school education. In fact, there is no contradiction. The folks in the ODP knock themselves out to prevent corruption. By and large, they succeed. The failures are vastly smaller in number and scope than self-serving, careless, and/or ignorant observers commonly allege.

    Frankly, I’m in the camp that thinks the vigilance is a bit overdone. We could use a reduction in the paranoia.

    We also could use a reduction in submissions of mediocre web sites like yours, but that’s a different matter. The egregiously terrible ones are actually less of a nuisance; something I can reject in good faith without clicking past the top page isn’t really much of an inconvenience at all.

    CAM

    CAM

  178. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    Well, I wasn’t going to return to this thread but you just don’t know when to quit, do you? And since you have insulted me, I think I have every right to return to it (I get “insult notification” via email, you see). So, here I am.

    “If you used a search engine, you wouldn’t have much trouble figuring whether I graduated from college. Indeed, my official bio even lists the universities I’ve taught at.”

    Why do you flatter yourself that I would look you up in a search engine? What for?

    Who you are and what you do doesn’t mean anything to me.

    Jason Calacanis commented on my blog once; do you know how long it took me to reply to him? 3 freaking *days*, but I saw the comment right away. I wasn’t impressed by the fact that he showed up; kind of non-plussed. I am NOT impressed by personage; I will not look you up if you do not interest me; I will not be in any hurry to reply to you because I care about who you are. I don’t. So step off your ego trip.

    “As for the supposed contradiction in what I wrote — too bad you didn’t go to college, or get an above-average high school education.”

    Why is it too bad? I have more integrity and less ego in my thumb than you have in your whole body, to quote one of Chelsie’s better efforts slightly out of context. And a college education can certainly never ensure a person will have the qualities I care about; namely: integrity, compassion, a sense of humor, and a spirit of truth and justice.

    “In fact, there is no contradiction. The folks in the ODP knock themselves out to prevent corruption. By and large, they succeed. The failures are vastly smaller in number and scope than self-serving, careless, and/or ignorant observers commonly allege.”

    First you wrote:

    “Corruption *IS* a problem at ODP”

    Then you went on to say it is being fought “VIGOROUSLY.”

    You said nothing in that comment about the “prevention” of corruption. Will you please re-read your comment now? Let’s break for a moment, class, while CAM tries to get his head on, even if it’s backwards.

    NOW you say you were speaking about the prevention of corruption, not the undoing and elimination of it? I don’t like being lied to, buddy, so stop wasting my time.

    “Frankly, I’m in the camp that thinks the vigilance is a bit overdone. We could use a reduction in the paranoia.”

    What paranoia? If you would re-read your first comment to me about the corruption at DMOZ that you’re fighting ever-so-VIGOROUSLY, you would see you wrote that corruption *IS* an ongoing problem, not a paranoia that should be put out of mind.

    I will repeat myself over and over until you finally admit what you wrote is exactly what I say.

    I might not be college-educated buddy, but I’m not a fool either.

    “We also could use a reduction in submissions of mediocre web sites like yours, but that’s a different matter.”

    That is inexcusabe on your part. To distract from your own lies and misstatements about ongoing corruption at DMOZ, you call my website mediocre? And that is supposed to accomplish what?

    I hand-wrote and hand-coded every goddamned page of it; it is my pride and joy because it is my first blog, but it wasn’t my last and there will be different blogs from me on different subjects in the future.

    Tell the hundreds of readers who have benefited from the advice on my blog that it’s “mediocre.” Tell it to people who got hundreds of dollars back from AOL simply by following a few bits of advice on my blog, who got AOL uninstalled without it ruining their computer thanks to my blog, who appreciated some bit of research I did into AOL’s past and published on my blog.

    Yes, I may be a hopeless hack (that’s easy to see), but I put my best effort into it regardless, and I do it as much for other people as I do it for myself. Also, if I am so goddamned mediocre, I wouldn’t be writing under my real name (Marah Marie is not it) on a well-known (if still-up-and-coming) tech site. They would not want me or my work.

    Balderdash on you is what I say. You don’t know a lie when you write it with your own hand, so your college education is worthless. Please go take a refresher course in Integrity 101 at that college of yours while I attempt to forget you ever bothered me tonight.

  179. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Marah,

    I was referring to bessed.com as the mediocre website (as should have been obvious from the comments I made about it). My apologies if that isn’t yours. There’s been a lot of confusion of that kind in this thread.

    As for what I wrote — I was assuming it would be read by people of at least average intelligence and reading ability. I’m sorry if it wasn’t suitable for you.

    CAM

  180. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Marah,

    As a general rule, when reading what I write one should consider paragraphs as a whole. If you’re unable or unwilling to do that, I suggest you skip over my posts in the future.

    CAM

  181. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 31 August, 2007

    You’re about to find out very fast Curt just how much my site IS being used for information. The average daily alexa is now around 50k and the site’s only three months old and we haven’t even hit the “market” button yet ;)

  182. robjonesBy robjones on 31 August, 2007

    Ummm… WHY IS THERE A THREAD HERE?
    Lest it disappear in this discussion of peoples own websites, remember why this thread exists. It wouldn’t be here if Dmoz condoned corruption.

    The thread is here because we took action on integrity issues… in fact because of two such actions. It is that simple.

    Because we have a zero tolerance policy on the subject of bribes / extortion… the directory will fire an editor if we find out they charged for inclusion, and will not list a website if a bribe is offered. THAT is why poor “Shoe” isn’t in Dmoz, he offered a bribe in ’05 and has been banned since.

    ———————
    ISSUE 1: NO BRIBES
    The site he claims as the extortion subject hasn’t been in Dmoz since 2005except for a 1 month period when our rednote text was wiped out by a server issue. The mistake was discovered and the error rectified. We don’t list your site if you try to entice editors to accept a bribe. It hadn’t been in Dmoz within roughly half a year of the allegation.

    ——————–
    ISSUE 2: Buddy-Buddy Edits Don’t Fly
    Why is Joost out? He lost perspective while trying to get a site listed for a “close friend of a friend”. He felt he was crusading for a site that deserved inclusion maybe, but that is why it is important to exercise caution when you are familiar with the webmatser. We are often accused of doing favors for friends… the good-ole-bot network. In this case his brain missed the signal that says…

    .. – .. “Would you do this if you didn’t know who wrote this site?” .. – ..

    Being too close to the case led break multiple guidelines in his attempt to get a site listed for someone he knew broke the rules and wasn’t allowed a listing. The note at the top of the blog about putting it in his bookmarks costing him his login is not why he’s gone and he knows that.

    ——————–
    NOW… if you REALLY want any Dmoz corruption addressed, why fight us for doing so? Has anyone said hanks to the staff for addressing the problem? No, people act like fighting corruption is an act of corruption. That is, simply put, wrong.
    ——————-

    Incidentally – Marah? Though I’m sure neither of us will care to trade Christmas cards (darn), FTR I work with women on a peer to peer basis regularly without problem. Aside from my choice of spouse I could care less what sex someone is.

    That said… When Chels started practicing profanity on me I correctly surmised what would push her button. [Turnabout is fair play.] Not that she was making a lot of sense before she went on tilt… with her little shot at extorting us and the vacillation between ‘list my site’ and ‘dmoz is useless’.

  183. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    I’ll be holding my breath …

    … but only when my snorkeling technique breaks down or the waves get surprisingly choppy.

    My wife and I talked about taking scuba lessons this trip, but I’m guessing we’ll once again decide not to. So it simply will be a whole lot of snorkeling.

    :)

    Good luck,

    CAM

  184. robjonesBy robjones on 31 August, 2007

    TYPO TRANSLATIONS
    good-ole-bot… good-ole-boy
    led break multiple guidelines… led him to break multiple guidelines
    hanks… thanks
    webmtser… webmaster

    Maybe more, I hate not getting to edit my posts.

  185. robjonesBy robjones on 31 August, 2007

    BTW – We can put the truth in front of you, but you’re the only one that can decide to embrace reality instead of a convenient story that might be more fun. I’m not going to hang around worrying which. Have fun.

  186. Matt BBy Matt B on 31 August, 2007

    Quoting Marah Marie Aug 31

    “Have a good day CAM. I will not be back, and unlike Chelsea, once I *tell you* I’m doing something, goddamnit it’s done.”

    Quoting Marah Marie Aug 31

    “Well, I wasn’t going to return to this thread but you just don’t know when to quit, do you?”

    Hehehehe :P

  187. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Aw shucks, Rob.

    I thought “good-old-bot” was a sly dig at blackhat SEOs …

    CAM

  188. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 31 August, 2007

    Oh you’re so intelligent RobJones.

    [quote]with her little shot at extorting us[/quote]

    “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander?”

    It’s funny how a bunch or morons can sit here talking openly in a live news broadcast blog and admit openly being dmoz editors knowing that everyone from AOL down will be reading about what a bunch of jackasses they are and not have the common sense to realize that $hit rolls downhill.

    You’ve not only discraced your entire directory guys but you’ve openly shown that there is some serious problems with DMOZ both technically and interpersonally as well as monetary and borderline fraudulant with regards to taking bribes for listings. This basically has shown the entire world in a nutshell that DMOZ results are inconclusive and should not be used by companies like Google, AOL and others. Being a DMOZ editor should now be a shameful admission and I am sure you all make your mother’s and DMOZ as a whole proud.

    Like I said earlier in coming months I honestly believe due to this exposure DMOZ won’t be worth the mention period from any company and any webmaster.

  189. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Chelsie,

    Again — I think you’re not thinking clearly about the bribery problem, for reasons I’ve stated above.

    As for the disclosure of, say, out of date listings — well, duh, those are already disclosed every day!

    DMOZ bashers in general,

    If you want to something that is:

    A. Correct
    B. Credible
    C. Potentially useful

    just go find a specific category with terrible listings, and publicize the fact with overwhelmingly clear proof of your assessment.

    If that’s not EASY for you to do … then maybe DMOZ isn’t so bad after all, eh?

    CAM

  190. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    Marah,

    While little else that you’ve said in this thread makes sense, you’re right that the Anti-AOL blog should be listed in DMOZ.

    Happily, one of the most obvious places was a category I edit.

    So I listed it.

    CAM

  191. aaronBy aaron on 31 August, 2007

    - – “The corruption complaint, however, is not.â€? – -

    Yes, the particular corruption/extortion complaint that shoemoney made is bullshit. His sites have been banned from being listed in the ODP for over two years.

    He has known that for more than two years. His ban is public knowledge. He was banned for offering a bribe to list his site. So, the corruption he started has been dealt with.

    As for the supposed extortion?

    How could anyone threaten to remove a banned site?

    The extortion threat is bogus. It is link-bait for his blog and so far it is working very well.

    You can see that a feed URL for his site was listed for a couple of weeks at the beginning of 2007, but that was quickly removed as per the “do not list” status of the site that has been in force since 2005.

    Editors do check each others work, and that is how people that break the rules are found out.

    Joost was found out, too, but also dropped profanities aimed at editors before the door was closed on him.

    If you want to believe something else, then do so, but check the facts as to what was listed using TheWayBackMachine first.

  192. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 31 August, 2007

    By the way, it’s possible that Joost’s so-called profanities were just a big misunderstanding, due to a minor language barrier, his fluent English notwithstanding. Perhaps he meant, as a reference to the old fairytale about the Bremerstadtsmusikanten, to say “Put your rooster on top of your donkey” — and it got garbled in translation.

    Sad if true …

    CAM

  193. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 31 August, 2007

    It could very well be the case Curt that I have been misunderstood. That’s why I still think all off this was a bit to rigorous.

  194. robjonesBy robjones on 31 August, 2007

    Joost – Misunderstood? Well, if we’re to pretend you didn’t know the meaning of profanity used in the normal context, it seems unlikely, but it doesn’t change the outcome since:

    1. You knew there was a rednote on the site
    2. You knew why it was denied inclusion… he offered a bribe
    3. You are responsible for following guidelines that prohibited publicly naming the editor who simply followed anti-abuse policy when posting the rednote. Even in this thread defended naming the editor.

    It doesn’t matter if you AGREE with policies that discourage abuse, only that you follow them… even when (ESPECIALLY when) the webmaster is “a close friend of a friend”. Amending abuse policy to make special exceptions for your friends is not where we need to go.

    If their is a misunderstanding, it is not on Dmoz end.

    I suspect you’re probably a nice guy, but when you violate a policy that has zero tolerance for exceptions, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I doubt he was worth it, but at least you got a little blog traffic for your effort.

  195. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    I hope you’re telling me the truth, Curt: I just checked my email for the first time since I wrote my last comment here and I was so surprised when I got to that one I think my appendix burst. I’m in so much pain I can only walk around doubled over now.

    Which category did you list my blog in?

    I just did a search from DMOZ’s home page but as usual it said there were no results for my URL.

  196. aaronBy aaron on 31 August, 2007

    The ODP search database is updated only after each RDF file is produced, so only once every week or two.

  197. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    Curt, this is the category I thought my blog should be in, the one that I applied for back in the day:

    http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Access_Providers/AOL/

    And I always thought of the categories listed on that page, it should be in this one:

    http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Access_Providers/AOL/Consumer_Opinions/

    …since it is my opinion on AOL, but I always had a soft spot for this category as well:

    http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Access_Providers/AOL/Member_Help_and_Advice/

    …and God knows my blog would be appropriate in either category. Even I have a hard time deciding which of those two categories is best, because I try to give both sides of the coin equal time (but when I did choose back in the day I leaned toward “opinion”).

    But my blog is not showing up in any of those categories at all, at least not yet (just refreshed the page and saw aaron’s comment, OK…still, the category question). What category will it be found under?

  198. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 31 August, 2007

    BTW, Curt, I’m not going to let this go:

    “Marah,

    “I was referring to bessed.com as the mediocre website (as should have been obvious from the comments I made about it). My apologies if that isn’t yours. There’s been a lot of confusion of that kind in this thread.”

    Your apology is accepted,, but why was there any confusion? Apparently you were confused from the start, but I attempted to straighten you out when I wrote:

    “I can’t list it[bessed.com]–it’s not mine. I don’t want it listed–it’s DMOZ competitor, for Christ’s sake, why would I want that?”

    I tried to be pretty clear in explaining that because I couldn’t get ANTI-AOL listed in DMOZ, I tried to get listed in bessed.com instead. If you want to read more about why I made that decision, read this:

    http://anti-aol.livejournal.com/21586.html

    (“Trying to get listed in DMOZ? Good luck”)

    Read the comments that follow it, where someone who owns or runs bessed.com applies to *me*. My ANTI-AOL site’s been listed in bessed.com ever since.

    Then you insult me:

    “As for what I wrote — I was assuming it would be read by people of at least average intelligence and reading ability. I’m sorry if it wasn’t suitable for you.”

    Are you now claiming I don’t have average intelligence and reading ability, and that your words are not “suitable” for me? If so, why did you choose to list my site? That is why I have difficulty believing it.

    Then you wrote:

    “Marah,

    “As a general rule, when reading what I write one should consider paragraphs as a whole. If you’re unable or unwilling to do that, I suggest you skip over my posts in the future.”

    I do read what you write in paragraphs (but I tend to skim long comment threads which is how I got into a mess with one of robjones’ comments). I read your comments word-for-word, though; in fact I parsed them carefully to make sure I understood, but I take things quite literally (nuance is *not* my forte) so it was about taking your words at face-value.

    Thanks for listing my site–but would you please tell me what category I’ll find it in once the RDF is updated?

  199. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 1 September, 2007

    OK, folks. Have fun, or whatever else motivates you.

    I’m in the last hours of my pre-vacation rush. And while my resort boasts what it calls the only combination liquor store and internet cafe in all of Grand Cayman, for various reasons — from unknown room assignment to the recent near-miss hurricane to the general balkiness of an aging laptop it’s not worth replacing — I won’t know how good my connectivity is until after I actually get there.

    Cheerio,

    CAM

  200. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 1 September, 2007

    You’re not answering any of my questions then? How unspeakably rude, and you’ve done that to me in public as well, not in emails or something. Unbelievable.

    Very well CAM: thanks for listing me in whatever category you chose for my blog, not that I’ll know what it is until sometime next week at the earliest, and thanks for doing so when I wasn’t even asking for your opinion on it, much less asking you to list it in DMOZ (but that did come as a welcome, if near-killer surprise, don’t get me wrong). Amazing how this has all turned out.

  201. Clint DixonBy Clint Dixon on 1 September, 2007

    Marah

    If you found out in the next 60 seconds which DMOZ category you were in..

    How would this dramatically alter your life?

    It wouldn’t.

    The plain 100% honest truth and nothing but!

    You won’t become a star, or find a trillion dollars, in fact your search engine rankings will not likely be effected either by determining what category your site is in.

    So do yourself a favor and go do something you love.

    Shoe got what he wanted, and DMOZ is no better off nor worse off than before his “claim”

    This is dead isnt it???

  202. fathomBy fathom on 1 September, 2007

    Stay tune for scenes from tomorrows episode from the best of “Anal-rhea Spew”! :-)

  203. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 1 September, 2007

    Well yeah, Clint, of course it’s dead. ShoeMoney is a blight upon the Internet…too bad with freedom of speech he has the technical (if not moral) right to keep lying to us about everything forever.

    I’m just sorry DMOZ has corruption problems, no matter how small they are compared to the overall effort put into the directory by the editors…it’s like having an idealistic fantasy torn from me by force…

    I’m not savvy about what goes on, I guess, so my disappointment in things is perpetual…if it’s not disappointment in one company, it’s in another, if it’s not in a company, it’s in this directory, if it’s not in this directory, then it’s in a person who can make me feel that way too… but it’s always something, the nice little hope I had here or the moral belief I clung to there exposed over and over again for the joke it is by other people’s standards. Maybe I’m just old -fashioned, or maybe I just expect too much. It doesn’t really matter in the end.

    Yes, you are right about the category thing as it applies to my blog…fair enough.

    I hereby pronounce this thread dead. Peace out, folks.

  204. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 1 September, 2007

    Marah forget it. They won’t list it. I’m showing ALOT of traffic from DMOZ and I’m not listed.. The entire secret email system of their’s must be abuzzing with commentary.
    Least I’m getting something out of this :D

    $hit rolls downhill for sure!

    In the public’s eye DMOZ is about as valuable now as a pile of poo which is all that matters.

    Here’s some stats to show you how much they actually do care.

    - DMOZ 31617 147231

  205. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 1 September, 2007

    Chelsie, please don’t throw your 2 cents in. Of all people, you have no idea what you’re talking about, and no one can take you seriously. Let this thread die, and shut up.

    Thank you.

  206. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 1 September, 2007

    Marah,

    The ideal category for your site is a non-existent blogs category somewhere in the AOL area.

    The three best areas among categories that actually exist are probably:

    1. What you suggested.
    2. Society/Issues/Business/Allegedly Unethical Firms, or whatever it’s called.
    3. The cyberspace blogs category.

    I only have privileges in one of those three.

    I trust you can take the analysis from there.

    CAM

    PS. And if any of my editing colleagues are reading this and sniffing that it really should be #1, you have my blessing to move the listing. But I’m tired and busy and frazzled, and I further judge that what was easiest for me happened to be a pretty good editing choice.

  207. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 1 September, 2007

    It’s taking me days to scroll to the end of this page, which isn’t a bad thing, I guess, but it sure is time-consuming…

    Thanks for letting me know roughly which category my blog will wind up in; my curiosity was killing me, as you could tell. Now I have a clear story to tell the people in my life who won’t even know what I’m talking about, but who will wish me luck and be happy for me all the same.

    Enjoy your vacation – wish I could grab some time away, too.

  208. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 1 September, 2007

    Marah, don’t undermine me please. I’m alot more intelligent that you may have gathered. I ask this politely. I really don’t care that DMOZ is scum. It’s just one article and a directory which is of little use to me now or anyone for that matter. This is being chronicled across domainer / webmaster forums around the globe already. It’s also one of Digg’s top stories. There are many many people truly interested in what DMOZ is really all about. Go take a look for yourself. Some of us consider the web as a career and invest accordingly and those of us who rely on search engines for a portfolio income really don’t like it when a company with inconclusive data is rigging the system. I really don’t care about the internal bickering or people problems within DMOZ what I do care about is indication listings that have high ranking in search engines are being bought in and quality is not a factor. I’m quite aware this is the position of all developers who’re following this. If data is being rigged we’re all concerned.

  209. robjonesBy robjones on 1 September, 2007

    IMPORTANT SAFETY TIP: “Digg” measures the popularity of a story, not the truth of it.

    “But must not Dmoz be corrupt? Yea Verily it must be so, for yea verily it was written in a blog!”

    If a million people vote that 5 + 5 = 14, it doesn’t make it true, just makes it a popular misconception. Shoemoney has scammed fellow bloggers with an extortion claim, and he profited from the blogger community’s natural instinct to circle the wagons to protect their own.

    Congrats to those that quickly saw thru his link-bait scam and pointed out he didn’t give what should have been easily supplied verification.

    For those that fell for it… here’s a tip; When a nice guy with $15 million needs to get it from the bank in Nigeria to your country and he offers you a cut… walk away from the keyboard.

  210. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 3 September, 2007

    Well, wifi is coming and going, but I have SOME connectivity from the road, it turns out.

    So here’s a general comment to add to some of the discussion: One of Shoemoney’s main businesses is selling people advice on how they can become very wealthy just like him.

    Anybody who aasumes a guy like that is telling the truth — well, I can understand why she’d feel under pressure to persuade people that she isn’t an idiot.

    CAM

  211. Chelsie MurphyBy Chelsie Murphy on 3 September, 2007

    Curt are you calling me an idiot? How much money do you make? How many programming languages do you know? (What’s your online bankroll big boy?) Oh I hope that wasn’t directed at me. Like I said, I came here primarily to ask questions regarding how DMOZ is feeding search engines inconclusive data for high rankings due to it being boughten and not due to quality. This is a BIG problem if there is any truth to this. It most certainly warrants investigation. Somehow you DMOZ people have managed to attempt to twist the spotlight off yourselves and onto someone who is precariously watching with regards to developer monetary interests worldwide. I’m no idiot Curt if that comment was geared my way. My net worth and development projects speak for that. I’ve better things to do than sit here listening to such useless garble further. The point is simply that if there’s any truth to DMOZ taking bribes for listings which ultimately effect search engine ranking for business you’re going to find DMOZ in a worldwide bucket of %^#@. I’m quite sure there is already people moving for an investigation.

  212. robjonesBy robjones on 3 September, 2007

    Chelsie – Apparently in your world… proof or no proof… if someone must defend against charges of corruption they MUST be corrupt.

    If that theory has validity… what does it say about the numbererous posts (even to someone on the same side) where you felt obligated to defend your intelligence?

  213. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 3 September, 2007

    I thought we agreed to let this thread die, all except Chelsie, that is.

    Since she had the temerity to address that last comment to me:

    “Marah, don’t undermine me please.”

    Who’s undermining you? You’re the one who suddenly became a DMOZ editor and told me my site wouldn’t be listed by them, then gave us stats on DMOZ traffic to your site, like that proved something.

    I came to this thread thinking you had a few valid points (if not always the best way of putting them) which is the only reason I bit robjone’s butt a bit over you. I didn’t like his trivilization and I still don’t, but ever since I dropped in you’ve gone totally off the deep end, so now I’m sorry I bothered.

    “I’m alot more intelligent that you may have gathered.”

    Wasn’t arguing about your intelligence or lack of it. Just suprised that all of a sudden you were a DMOZ editor and “knew” what would happen. How is MY site any concern of yours?

    “I really don’t care that DMOZ is scum.”

    DMOZ is scum? If they’re scum why do you *want* to be listed in DMOZ so bad? Why did you attempt to extort the editors in this thread if you think DMOZ is scum?

    “It’s just one article and a directory which is of little use to me now or anyone for that matter.”

    Uh, yeah, right. See “DMOZ is scum” directly above.

    “This is being chronicled across domainer / webmaster forums around the globe already. It’s also one of Digg’s top stories.”

    It is *not* one of Digg’s top stories, not for that day, not for this week, and not for this month or year.

    Does anyone in this thread really need to tell you that Digg’s top stories never fail to get at least 1500 diggs or so within a week? I’ve been one of Digg’s top story makers (just once) so I learned from the gorund up what a top story is, so quit it.

    And you make a bit much out of this “around the globe” theory. Of course people read it from “around the globe.” I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but people from around the globe generally read everything. An Internet connection is designed to facilitate that. It doesn’t make this story or you famous.

    “Some of us consider the web as a career and invest accordingly and those of us who rely on search engines for a portfolio income really don’t like it when a company with inconclusive data is rigging the system.”

    You don’t have this straight yet, do you?

    People within the “company” have been known, according to much of the scuttlebutt here, to take money to accept sites for listing.

    Even Curt discussed this when he mentioned he thinks the number of sites listed that way “definitely” falls under 1,000 a year.

    Companies aren’t really fraudulent, though; the people in them are.

    And I don’t think DMOZ, as your comment suggests, is completely corrupt (as in “unsavable”). But I don’t really know, so don’t quote me.

    I don’t see the point to arguing about it, either way (but you do because you think the “whole world” is watching and some kind of a huge virtual spotlight is shining on you right now. You need to quit thinking like that.

    “I really don’t care about the internal bickering or people problems within DMOZ…”

    Well I do; that’s *why* DMOZ is easy to corrupt. In fact, that’s why most companies are: their people.

    “…what I do care about is indication listings that have high ranking in search engines are being bought in and quality is not a factor.”

    So does everyone else. All of us came out quite stongly *against* corruption in this thread, regardless of whether you believe that’s how everyone actually feels (and how everyone operates) or not. There’s nothing left to discuss.

    Curt–

    I think everyone should have read shoemoney’s post before they read this one but I’ll bet most people coming from Digg didn’t.

    shoemoney’s post and disclaimer should’ve made frontpage at the same time this post did just to show what kind of a person he is; Joost’s story is it’s side-shoot, not easily grasped until you know what shoemoney’s written, claimed, and actually done.

  214. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 3 September, 2007

    shoemoney is the scum of the earth…

  215. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 3 September, 2007

    Chelsie,

    I prefer not to do my own bragging when I can get my friends and acquaintances to do it for me.

    http://www.monash.com/test-research.html and http://www.monash.com/test-advisory.html are examples.

    If making money is one of your big measures — well, two of guys quoted at the first link are billionaires, and one of them was briefly listed as the richest man in the world.

    And yes — unless they’ve seen a lot more substantiation than I’m aware of him showing to the general public, anybody who believes what Shoemoney says is being an idiot. (Sorry, Joost.)

    CAM

  216. philip colatoBy philip colato on 3 September, 2007

    Folks,
    I have read your comments with great interest. I am a real neophyte and submitted my website awhile ago. The site has over 50 pages of original text that I had translated into 4 languages.
    After reading your posts I know feel I may never know if I have or will be accepted.

  217. Clint DixonBy Clint Dixon on 3 September, 2007

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  218. Indiana JonesBy Indiana Jones on 3 September, 2007

    Does anyone still use DMOZ?

  219. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 3 September, 2007

    No, but it seems everyone wants to be listed in it, in spite of that.

    The idea behind DMOZ when it was started a long time ago was to assemble a great human edited directory with cream-of-the-crop-listings for every possible “subject” or “category” out there. That’s why I wanted to get in so badly, and I still do. I haven’t really gone through DMOZ’s listings in say, the last year or so, to see if the quality of listings is as high and as relevant and as good as it used to be. I hope that overall it still is, although obviously a few commenters here have suggested otherwise.

  220. Curt MonashBy Curt Monash on 6 September, 2007

    Philip,

    Four different languages?

    You are one of the few people who would ever be encouraged to make four different submissions, I think. That would of course be ONE for each language.

    But let me hasten to say that what matters is not just the originality of the writing, but the originality of the facts and opinions. If your site is just the 179,437th recitation of the tourist wonders of New York City, it may not be listable.

    Good luck,

    CAM

  221. Old Welsh GuyBy Old Welsh Guy on 7 September, 2007

    Well this is interesting. he said she said.

    Is DMOZ dead? is it worth it? are there corrupt editors? is DMOZ systematically corrupt? WHO CARES?

    is there corruption at DMOZ? damn right but that means there are bad people there not that the directory is bad per-se.

    Have I ever paid to get a site in? nope. do I submit now? yep, do it right, do it once, and forget about it. same today as always was.

    Until Google drop it, people will assume it is important. AFTER Google drop it, there will STILL be people clambouring to get in it ? Go figure

    DMOZ is just another directory! It is just that it was the original victim of its own success.

  222. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 7 September, 2007

    “Well this is interesting. he said she said.”

    Aren’t those the most interesting stories? The “he-said he-saids”? The ones where you’ll never know the truth? I always ruin my own fun when I unravel them. Once you know what’s what, it’s boring. But if you don’t want to know, then it’s *you* that’s boring, without intellect or scruples — not the unanswered questions.

  223. WebdesignBy Webdesign on 7 September, 2007

    what a weirdo’s great to see your getting such much support!

  224. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 7 September, 2007

    Before you try to insult any of us, “Micrdesign webdesign”, at least learn some English. Your use of an apostrophe suggests you’re insulting all of us, you didn’t captilaize, and you forgot a preposition, if my grammer lessons aren’t getting too hard to recall.

    If you’re after one of us (me?) you troll, it’s “What a weirdo. But it’s great to see you’re getting so much support!” Makes you sound kind of witty.

    If it’s all of us you’re after, you need to pluralize: “What weirdos. It’s great to see all of you get so much support!”

    Think about this: You come here and insult me or us or in English but you don’t even know how to write it. I notice you write in German, and I can get by in it. Look for badly worded Deutsche insults hurled your way soon. Fair game, man, fair game.

  225. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 7 September, 2007

    I guess Joost isn’t into the “she-said” angle. Anyone else pick up how he deleted 2 of Chelsie’s comments and at least 3 or 4 of mine? Also one of Curt’s comments is gone. What’s wrong, Joost, trying to rewrite history? A little late for that don’t you think? Rather than worry about our comments and how they “look”, why don’t you worry about what you wrote in the post that proceeds them? It shows your lack of ethics in a way that little else could. What a joke.

  226. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 7 September, 2007

    Hmm Marah, I’m sorry, something must have gone wrong as I did not purposefully delete any comments…

  227. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 7 September, 2007

    Funny how on my own blog I’ve never had the problem of comments deleting themselves. In highly randomized fashion, no less. What a coincidence! Then again if you’re on WP, which is a notorious fuck-up, anything’s possible. Could also be the sheer amount of comments has caused something to go haywire. Very well. Whatever.

  228. Joost de ValkBy Joost de Valk on 7 September, 2007

    I’m truly sorry Marah, no intention of burying your comments…

  229. HooperBy Hooper on 8 September, 2007

    DMOZ definetely has too much power and agree Google should punt them.

  230. Rose DesRochersBy Rose DesRochers on 10 September, 2007

    Unbelievable. You should read the post on invision-graphics titled Dmoz sucks. All along my husband has said that Dmoz is crooked. Five years he has been trying to get in.

  231. fathomBy fathom on 11 September, 2007

    Rose DesRochers: why don’t you support your husband goals and do some voluntary work at DMOZ… or do you agree his website isn’t worth the effort?

  232. Marah MarieBy Marah Marie on 11 September, 2007

    @fathom:

    Do voluntary work at DMOZ? What are you talking about? I know I’m not Rose but I’ve never heard of such a thing…please explain what that involves?

  233. RoseBy Rose on 11 September, 2007

    fathom what are you talking about? I think you missed the point. My husband does not need Dmoz. No one needs Dmoz in order to have a successful site. From what I have been reading I sure as heck would not want to be a Dmoz editor.

  234. HarrisonBy Harrison on 25 September, 2007

    What contributes to the problem is that DMOZ policy seems cloak and dagger to us mortals. The organization is super opaque, and these stories (if they are not trued) cannot be dismissed cleanly.

    DMOZ can bleed to death by a thousand cuts if there is no shift in policy.

  235. DavidBy David on 28 June, 2008

    My webste is http://www.akindof.com. it is about shopping, I hope that My webiste can be listed on Dmoz.org. Who is Dmoz Editor. Please contact me.My Email is admin@akindof.com.

    I am in China.I am looking forward to your reply.

    Good luck.

  236. wildkhollyBy wildkholly on 14 March, 2009

    Im an SEO and I was just trying to figure out how often SEO editor sign in to add new sites to catagories.

  237. Henry PitchBy Henry Pitch on 26 May, 2009

    Some really usefull information here if you pay attention, thanks

  238. DRK BlogBy DRK Blog on 5 August, 2009

    @Joost: In first place I want to thank you for your position about this problem. Most editors just don’t care about webmasters. Or worst, they seem to hate us. As if every webmaster is supposed to be a spammer.

    What happened to you is what happens to anyone who stands against a dictatorial system. You were silenced. But you exposed the fact that DMOZ is rotten to the core.

    You are not the only editor who suffered such abuse. I read about a guy banned for explaining what he did for improving a category.

  239. RickBy Rick on 29 September, 2009

    I hate DMOZ. As a Web Designer/SEO professional I tried for like 2 years to get my clients sites listed. They are all LOCAL businesses, and I can’t even get one of them listed in the Regional Directory. I have submitted more than a dozen sites none of which have made it to a listing, and no answers ever given as to why. I just submit and then never hear anything again. They can count on me never submitting a site again.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Korrupte Editoren bei DMOZ – Der allseits beliebte Shoemoney wurde aus dem DMOZ geschmissen weil er keine 5.000$ zahlen wollte. Ein anderer Editor, der dem Fall auf den Grund gehen wollte, ist kurzerhand einfach gelöscht worden. [...]

  2. [...] 近日,Shoemoney的一篇å?šæ–‡-Dmoz Extortion引起了轩然大波。文中称DMOZçš„æŸ?ä½?编辑å?‘Shoemoneyå‹’ç´¢5000美刀,å?¦åˆ™å°†æŠŠShoemoney的站从DMOZ索引中删除。Shoemeony当然ä¸?会给钱了,éš?å?Žä»–å?‘现自己的站真的在DMOZ目录中消失了。该文引å?‘了数百æ?¡è¯„论,许多SEO都指责DMOZè¿™ç§?错误的行为。有一个DMOZ编辑å?‘DMOZ询问关于为什么Shoemoney网站被删除,36个å°?时之内,他å?‘现自己的编辑è?Œä½?被å?–消了,没有任何邮件或者其他通知。事æ€?å?‘展的越æ?¥è¶Šä¸¥é‡?了。 DMOZ因为å…?费,收录公正,索引网站质é‡?都比较高而广å?—称赞,许多人ä¸?惜花é‡?金请人æ??交目录,没想到现在出了这ç§?丑闻。Google自身的Directory就是直接拷è´?DMOZ的,在DMOZ登录的网站一般都会得到Google更多的å??爱,特别是新站,如果被收录了,排å??会好é?žå¸¸é?žå¸¸å¤šã€‚ 看æ?¥ç¨?微有点æ?ƒåŠ›å°±ä¼šä½¿äººè…?败,å?¤ä»Šä¸­å¤–皆然。 有人呼å??干脆把DMOZ也å?šæˆ?收费登录,有人建议Google放弃DMOZè¿™ç§?所谓”人工编辑”的目录。Google对此会有什么æ€?度? 抛开DMOZæŸ?些编辑的丑æ?¶è¡Œä¸ºã€‚ 我有两个站在DMOZ登录了,虽然没有æµ?é‡?,但也算是一个高质é‡?的链接。如果DMOZ收费,å?ªè¦?ä»·æ ¼å?ˆç?†ï¼Œæ¯”如和Yahooå·®ä¸?多,我还是会选择登录的。如果DMOZ被Google放弃了,对我æ?¥è¯´åº”该是一个比较大的æ?Ÿå¤±ã€‚所以我希望DMOZ能有高层站出æ?¥æ¾„清整个事件,并惩罚æŸ?些破å??分å­?,挽回DMOZ的声誉。 [...]

  3. [...] Google会ä¸?会放弃DMOZ 作者: admin  类别 SEO讨论 29Aug 近日,Shoemoney的一篇å?šæ–‡-Dmoz Extortion引起了轩然大波。文中称DMOZçš„æŸ?ä½?编辑å?‘Shoemoneyå‹’ç´¢5000美刀,å?¦åˆ™å°†æŠŠShoemoney的站从DMOZ索引中删除。Shoemeony当然ä¸?会给钱了,éš?å?Žä»–å?‘现自己的站真的在DMOZ目录中消失了。该文引å?‘了数百æ?¡è¯„论,许多SEO都指责DMOZè¿™ç§?错误的行为。有一个DMOZ编辑å?‘DMOZ询问关于为什么Shoemoney网站被删除,36个å°?时之内,他å?‘现自己的编辑è?Œä½?被å?–消了,没有任何邮件或者其他通知。事æ€?å?‘展的越æ?¥è¶Šä¸¥é‡?了。 DMOZ因为å…?费,收录公正,索引网站质é‡?都比较高而广å?—称赞,许多人ä¸?惜花é‡?金请人æ??交目录,没想到现在出了这ç§?丑闻。Google自身的Directory就是直接拷è´?DMOZ的,在DMOZ登录的网站一般都会得到Google更多的å??爱,特别是新站,如果被收录了,排å??会好é?žå¸¸é?žå¸¸å¤šã€‚ 看æ?¥ç¨?微有点æ?ƒåŠ›å°±ä¼šä½¿äººè…?败,å?¤ä»Šä¸­å¤–皆然。 有人呼å??干脆把DMOZ也å?šæˆ?收费登录,有人建议Google放弃DMOZè¿™ç§?所谓”人工编辑”的目录。Google对此会有什么æ€?度? 抛开DMOZæŸ?些编辑的丑æ?¶è¡Œä¸ºã€‚ 我有两个站在DMOZ登录了,虽然没有æµ?é‡?,但也算是一个高质é‡?的链接。如果DMOZ收费,å?ªè¦?ä»·æ ¼å?ˆç?†ï¼Œæ¯”如和Yahooå·®ä¸?多,我还是会选择登录的。如果DMOZ被Google放弃了,对我æ?¥è¯´åº”该是一个比较大的æ?Ÿå¤±ã€‚所以我希望DMOZ能有高层站出æ?¥æ¾„清整个事件,并惩罚æŸ?些破å??分å­?,挽回DMOZ的声誉。 [...]