| 5:24 am on Apr 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Another way you could look at it is that this editor determined you were a spammer and simply removed all of your listings. I can understand the logic from that side. However, that's not to say what you did was right or wrong. It's just the problem of letting one meta editor be judge, jury, and executioner of the entire matter.
| 5:36 am on Apr 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ corrupt? [search.dmoz.org] Nah!
| 6:08 am on Apr 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
So that I can investigate your claims, perhaps you could publish or PM me your editor name.
@martinibuster: The Topix issue was a a deal between the management of Topix and the management of AOL (who own DMOZ). Ordinary editors were not involved (and many disapproved).
| 7:37 am on Apr 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
So how corrupt does DMOZ have to become until it dawns on you that your admirable efforts are being exploited by AOL and TOPIX?
| 8:07 am on Apr 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Wheel, I feel for you. When I applied to be an editor I mentioned that I had a few affiliate sites, none of which would be suitable for DMOZ so I was surprised to be knocked back. I have spent over 20 years in volunteer work, including JoeAnt, so I know how rare volunteers are.
While I don't have any "corrupt DMOZ" stories of my own, I have discouraged others from submitting their sites as a result of that strange decision. Tell me, do editors get indoctrination that tells you to treat the world as guilty until proven innocent?
| 3:42 pm on Apr 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|So how corrupt does DMOZ have to become until it dawns on you that your admirable efforts are being exploited by AOL and TOPIX? |
1. I've never listed a Topix deeplink so I'm not sure why you think Topix is exploiting me.
2. AOL derives no income from DMOZ but does fund the software development, servers and their operation. In essence, they are paying for my hobby so I guess I'm actually exploiting them.
| 1:20 am on Apr 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|In essence, they are paying for my hobby so I guess I'm actually exploiting them. |
The are also ruining your name by association.
IMHO, I wouldn't be an editor there even if they paid and the pay was good at this point.
| 12:16 pm on Apr 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Another way you could look at it is that this editor determined you were a spammer and simply removed all of your listings. I can understand the logic from that side. |
Really? What about my sites that were removed that were approved by another editor and listed prior to my becoming an editor?
DMOZ has a meta-editor complain section. I detailed the complaints there. It was 'resolved' in less than 24 hours. And by resolved, what they did was set the status of the complaint to resolved and did nothing else.
It would seem that in the cases where the editors aren't corrupt, then they're fanatics. Which is worse.
I'll stick to paid directories in the future thank you very much.
| 5:32 am on Apr 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The directory industry has come along way since DMOZ was in its prime. It is unfortunate there have been so many problems with DMOZ. I think much of it is a result of no clear leadership, and an unsure budget.
| 9:30 pm on May 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Alrighty . . Once again a DMOZ thread, left open long enough, devolves to little more than the piling on of derogatory comments.
Having removed the last post, for clearly stepping over the lines defined by the Charter, I am now locking this thread.