homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.125.89
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 58 ( 1 [2]     
DMOZ editor application
should i say that im a webmaster.
souffle




msg:491313
 3:06 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

on the application for dmoz it requires me to explain my internet experience.I'm getting conflicting reports about if DMOZ finds out that your a webmaster they will not accept you.

The question is wich of the below should i do.

A)go into details about my webmaster expercience
B)downplay my experience
C)restrict my experience to internet surfing

 

texasville




msg:491343
 4:29 am on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>1) "Webmasters" isn't some new elite caste, above the rest of the world. It's just a small set of low-level clerical semi-skills<<<

I love that. Hutch doesn't waste time flaming just one person. He goes after a whole profession.

g1smd




msg:491344
 7:14 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

He has the experience of looking at a few tens of thousands of websites over the last few years.

I guess that he has seen much more than a "representative sample" to make such an opinion.

podman




msg:491345
 11:06 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Webmasters can mean two things, [1] one whose profession is promiting and SEOing. [2] the simple owner of a site.

I'm a webmaster and an editor. When I'm a webmaster, i'll use any devious way I can to promote my sites and get them to rank highly in search engines, including using mirrors, multiple sites, and various other tricks. As a result I have sites that "unfairly" outrank other similar sites, because I ended up playing these games better than those other nieve webmasters who don't know better.

As an editor, if I should submit those mirror sites to DMOZ in order to get a second listing, I would expect to be terminated.

hutcheson




msg:491346
 11:24 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ah, "profession". It sounds so stuffy, like you couldn't do it without wearing an Armani tie or an expensive stethoscope. Or maybe the Old-World way, with guild dinners and secret initiatory rites with funny costumes. There's an irresistable temptation to poke one of the funny costumes with a pin and see what pops.

Teaching is a profession. Aeronautics is a profession. Plumbers and electricians have to be licensed, and with some justification. Accounting is even a profession. But "typing" and "forklift driving" and "stenography" and, yes, "webmastering" are just high-school courses.

There's nothing wrong with being a webmaster, any more than, say, a night-soil carrier. It has to be done. There's something wrong with thinking it makes you something special.

RichTC




msg:491347
 12:31 am on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Podman,

By your own reply you confirm exactly why Google needs to drop having any connection with or use of DMOZ data forthwith.

Fair play to you, you edit and play the game your way and do what you can to get ahead. Thats your method of webmastering and its not for others to say if thats right or wrong - thats your business

However, in your scope as editor you confirm that you would be taking a risk submitting mirror sites / spam / junk (what ever we want to call it) twice to DMOZ as that may be asking for trouble but, in making this statement you are confirming that listing the site the once in DMOZ is however OK (as long as its your site).

I genuinely cant fault you for that. You are not on your own, many other editors are doing the same - i only wish more dmoz editors were as honest and would post more often on here but, it does rather confirm the point well that editors are not listing "Quality" sites for the good of the internet but are more interested in getting the backlinks from listing own sites in the directory even if they are junk, clone or low quality sites that possibly shouldnt even be on the internet let alone listed as a "quality" site in the dmoz / google directory.

Its no wonder that so many webmasters want to be dmoz editors and are prepared to lie on the application to get in - who can blame them!.

hutcheson




msg:491348
 3:12 am on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Podman confirms no such thing.

It is well known--among both editors and people who have read the submittal policies--that submittals of "related sites" (that is, the mirrors, single-product-lines, doorways, etc.) are not allowed, because they are NEVER listable.

But -- the presence of unlistable-relatives doesn't necessarily make a site unlistable! Amazon has zillions of affiliate doorways -- none listable, even though Amazon.com itself is listed. Ditto hotelnow.com.

Is podman's main site listable? It may be, even though he spams on the side. We don't know without looking. He implied that it is; he absolutely did not confirm that it isn't.

As for that principle which makes venality, greed, corruption, deceit, and treachery socially acceptable and unblameable, simply because their possessor belongs to the "webmaster club" -- I do not subscribe to it. The same kind of person who would abuse a volunteer effort would steal money from church collection plates and sell life insurance to his own relatives. When he dies, Dante will have to dig a whole new circle, the original infernal nine won't be enough.

flicker




msg:491349
 2:52 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

I suspect you're misunderstanding, RichTC. If a website has real content, it deserves to be listed in a content directory (like the ODP.) If it also has 27 mirrors designed to fool search engines and keep up with the Joneses, none of them should be given additional listings in the ODP, because they're duplicates. But that doesn't make the original site any worse. A search engine like Google may be in the habit of banning a site across the board if one of its pages is bad, but it doesn't really benefit a directory to do that, because the bad pages don't have listings (are never submitted, in fact, unless the webmaster is a jerk,) and therefore the existence of the duplicate pages doesn't interfere with what the directory is doing.

RichTC




msg:491350
 10:53 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

hutchey & flicker (defenders of DMOZ)

The poster confirms that their webmaster ethics are, lets just say shady. Yet they act as editors of your directory.

Theft of a pound V Theft of £1000 is still Theft, is it not?

Should someone that will mirror, cloak do what ever black hat technique to game a search engine be an editor that can decide who does or doesnt list within their cat?

Having this editor looking after a DMOZ section is like asking a Donkey to look after strawberry's.

Sorry, but this is yet more evidence (not that we dont have more than enough of it already) that DMOZ has a percentage of corrupt editors and why i call for Google to detatch itself from using DMOZ data forthwith.

All of the sites i work on, i build in line with Google terms and conditions. I dont cheat, cloak, clone sites, I dont do anything black hat to try and cheat the system, i just do good honest webmastering.

Im not an editor of DMOZ, yet sites that i or my clients may have submitted to DMOZ may be processed, deleted or ignored by editors that dont work to the same standards that i do. They are editors that have their own interests at heart and that are in a number of cases in possible confict with what the principle of DMOZ was originally all about.

This is not to say that im knocking this poster. As i posted earlier they are at least honest about what they are doing and plenty of other DMOZ editors work the same way, but i do question if a directory should be managed in this way and certainly not if its one that wants to be classed as an authority.

hutcheson




msg:491351
 12:11 am on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

All podman claimed is that he DIDN'T misuse ODP privileges, even though (like all of us) he could have had opportunity.

That is hardly a confirmation that he DID.

>sites that i or my clients may have submitted to DMOZ may be processed, deleted or ignored by editors that dont work to the same standards that i do.

I hope and trust this is so, and I thank you for recognizing it.

RichTC




msg:491352
 1:03 am on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hutchey,

Very funny!

Have to ask you why you bother working on DMOZ?. You must see that its on borrowed time. It awaits the same fate as Zeal.

Its a case of when, not if AOL just pull the plug on it, so why does a women with your obvious interest in the internet waste time editing it? What do you get out of it? Why not put that effort into your own directory or start some other editor style website if you love that kind of input work so much, at least that way you will gain from your efforts and are able to control your future.

When AOL pull the plug it will all have been for nothing!, thats why i cant uderstand why you are so quick to defend it

Regards

Rich


cbpayne




msg:491353
 1:25 am on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Its a case of when, not if AOL just pull the plug on it
...if that is the case perhaps you could explain why AOL just paid for new servers for DMOZ.
souffle




msg:491354
 2:00 am on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

after weeks of research and have a profesional web content writer help me with the application i was rejected as an editor for DMOZ. Coruption, coruption, Coruption.

So now i have to go to plan B and pay someone a very high price to get my site added.

Just like some one who pays a Hore. That how i see DMOZ now. I have to pay to stick my Site in it.

cbpayne




msg:491355
 2:40 am on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)


after weeks of research and have a profesional web content writer help me with the application i was rejected as an editor for DMOZ. Coruption, coruption, Coruption.
I do not understand the logic. Your application was not good enough and that means DMOZ is corrupt - please explain.
So now i have to go to plan B and pay someone a very high price to get my site added.
That is more likely to get you permanently banned. Just ask those who were so desperate to get in that they offered money ...
souffle




msg:491356
 3:07 am on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

wake up and smell the coffee. DMOZ is not free infact its the most expensive Directory on the web. You can list a site for a few thousands dollars. The difference is that DMOZ does not get the money but rather corupt editors. Im not going to do it though its too expensive for me. I'm just have to forget about DMOZ and consentrate on web content and linking. Mind you i dont think all of DMOZ editors are corupt.

hutcheson




msg:491357
 3:32 am on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, that's interesting: testimony from a most hostile witness that the ODP is exceedingly hard to corrupt. Most interesting, if true -- but why lie? To lull us into a false sense of security, maybe?

(This tinfoil hat moment brought to you as a public service by members of the ODP editing community.)

"Borrowed time -- it's the only kind of time there is. Get used to it."

cbpayne




msg:491358
 4:46 am on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Perhaps you could show us just one shread of evidence of anyone who has paid $1000 and where you have to go to pay it.... ie put up or shut up

If any one is stupid enough to think a DMOZ listing is worth that much, then they deserve a permanant ban.

souffle




msg:491359
 12:14 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

well let me say there are websites on DMOZ that are for sale this is a fact. You open a website on DMOZ and all you see a sign for sale. Thats one proof and in a way paying to get your way in to DMOZ.

Wlauzon




msg:491360
 12:56 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

That has to be the stupidest statement I have seen yet from you... and there have been quite a few in this thread.

You whine about corruption, yet you are perfectly willing to be corrupt yourself.

I am probably one of the longest termed and most dedicated DMOZ hater on this board - but you take the cake for sheer tin hat stuff. I would never defend DMOZ on any legitimate gripes, but so far all I have seen from you is left-field rants, false accusations with no facts to back them up, and a lot of whining about how others are as corrupt as you.

And this statement is so far off base I wonder how you ever came up with it
well let me say there are websites on DMOZ that are for sale this is a fact.

Anyone that has more than 5 minutes worth of knowledge about the internet would realize that just because you click on a link and it takes you to a site that is for sale has no bearing on the link. If that were so, then Google must also be accepting bribes.

larryhatch




msg:491361
 1:33 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Am I seeing people here, who simply cannot spell: viz "coruption" (repeatedly), "Hore", "consentrate"
and so on .. complaining because they were rejected as editors?

The number one requisite of an editor is literacy. The finest writers on Earth are edited by editors.
Spelling is the barest most primordial element of literacy.

Another need is even-handedness, and I think some posts above rule that out.

Would the DMOZ bashers here care to divulge URLs of their websites? I'd love to see the content.
Naaaah. Don't be silly. -Larry

rmccollom




msg:491362
 1:45 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

What is going on here? I'm lost.

Just because a site is for sale that somehow equates to paying for a listing? Really? Where do you get ideas like this?

Sure, there are corrupt editors, but I think the majority of us are very honest human beings (and we know how to spell).

I guess I'm feeling left out because I've never been offered a bribe.

RichTC




msg:491363
 3:24 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Larry and others,

With respect not many webmasters would want to be a DMOZ editor. They only submit an editor application to list own sites for the backlink advantage often due to them not being able to get their own site listed.

IMO i think DMOZ should be closed down, end of. I feel it has far to many corrupt editors and it produces so much duplicate junk on the internet with clone sites that it actively promotes, that the internet could well do without it IMO.

Editors have been given the chance to look into using no follow code links or preventing the content from being duplicated but they like it the way it is. A listing in DMOZ provides about 2000 backlinks and that is imo a way of gaming google (and needs to be stopped) if the editor is corrupt and lists own sites and ignores quaility sites that should be listed .

Furthermore, the directory is out of date and cant keep up with the expanding internet.

As for "DMOZ Bashers" i guess you could add me to the list. Having worked on about 700 websites over the last 5 years and seen some of the webmasters get their sites listed or cast aside i have a reasonable idea of how DMOZ works and i dont like it.

Some of my own sites that i actively work on are listed in DMOZ so i have no reason to apply to be an editor but do understand why some webmasters want to be editors - 2000+ free backlinks and a list in Google directory is perhaps worth it to some.

I also know for a fact that i can buy a DMOZ listing if i want one as some of my clients have done this. No one in their right mind is going to post on a public forum names and details of corrupt editors. Its a way for sites to get listed and webmasters know the advantage of getting in.

With Google recently reducing the Page Rank of clone directory sites and discounting some of them from the SERPS this was a step in the right direction and it needs to continue with this, but untill Google breaks away 100% the problem will continue.

If editors thought that they wouldnt get a backlink advantage from listing own sites in the directory and an advantage from preventing others from listing, they wouldnt bother editing the directory and the entire editor structure of DMOZ would fall like a house of cards imo.

As i posted earlier, imo its a matter of time anyway before the directory is closed down and ends up the same way as Zeal, so those "DMOZ bashers" as you put it, dont have long to wait before DMOZ comes to an end anyway and that day cant come quick enough frankly!.

Internet users have absolutely no use for a generalist web directory now that the search engines provide detailed specific search imo.

Also, very few use DMOZ anyway, a site with 1 million visitors a month will be lucky to see 2 referals from DMOZ! The only use for DMOZ is for gaining lots of free backlinks that help push a site in the SERPS.

Whilst some of the active DMOZ editors here that like the advantages of working on the closed DMOZ project wont like what i post, im sure many other webmasters and web designers reading this forum have had similar experiences of DMOZ and would agree with me.

Also, some editors that do post on this board have in the past in other threads confirmed some of the issues i have mentioned here regarding corruption, so lets not pretend that this isnt a serious issue and a problem with the DMOZ set up - it is!. Corruption and DMOZ go hand in Glove imo!

Regards

Rich

souffle




msg:491364
 4:07 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I donít have time so I leave out letters for speed when i write sort of like when you SMS someone.

Iím not going to write about DMOZ any more after this. But how about instead of denying all this why donít you go and try to see if itís true or somehow make improvement. Iím not the only one who feels this way. I think DMOZ should find a better way in assessing sites maybe a software to weed out bad sites before they go to editors or something like that.

Iím criticizing a system DMOZ not any one individual on this forum. SO keep your insults to your selves and have some manners, If you are so naÔve to think that DMOZ is this perfect place then so be it I JUST DONíT CARE.

cbpayne




msg:491365
 4:25 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Iím not going to write about DMOZ any more after this.

So in other words, you have no evidence.

hutcheson




msg:491366
 7:15 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, it should be pretty obvious that no editors think the ODP is perfect. (If that were true, there'd be nothing else to edit!) So that's one of the stupider straw men ever dragged out of the muck.

As for the possibility of corruption, all the editors are believed to be human so that's certainly a possibility. And yes, it's only the dimmer bulbs among wannabe-corrupt editors that get pruned most quickly (as we've seen here.) The irony is, the CLEVER corrupt editors know they have to act as much like uncorrupt editors as possible, in order to maintain their disguise -- and so they do a great deal of good work (in addition to their corrupt work. Which may make them hard to find. But some have been found out.

I think that is also why (as Rich says) most people who call themselves "webmasters" don't want to be editors. It's too much work to be an effective corrupt editor, and not enough renumerative in the ways that matter to them.

rkhare




msg:491367
 7:25 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

So in other words, you have no evidence.

truth is so universal that we dont need to publish evidence in favour of it. you need evidence, o.k. do it yourself....... go to any of the categories and check all the listed sites, then search for the keyword and check the search results, compare the search result with listed sites, you'll find the difference. OPD, a great idea, is irrelevant now.

Ivan_Bajlo




msg:491368
 8:11 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Several thousands of dollars to get into DMOZ? I'll place your link in all categories I maintain right now! ;-)))

(to all meta reading this, I'll donate all cash to whatever they want)

And yes I'm one of those "webmasters" who has joined DMOZ so he could "spam" directory with his sites I do this at Wikipedia too. ;-)

I got rejected several times when I wanted to get new categories but being annoying enough I'm slowly expanding... okay I admit I don't edit some cool commercial directories, word obscure is better description. ;-)

And yes I also find DMOZ system sometimes annoying but as certain person said "A Man Has to Know His Limitation" (at risk of being crucified I really liked ZEAL points method).

g1smd




msg:491369
 8:11 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I recently built several new categories simply by typing a keyword into Google, reviewing the top 30 sites returned for that keyword, and then adding those that were listable into the directory - and many other editors have done similar things in the past, too.

hutcheson




msg:491370
 9:00 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

>go to any of the categories and check all the listed sites, then search for the keyword and check the search results, compare the search result with listed sites, you'll find the difference.

Been there, done that. The ODP often does a very good job of weeding 90% of the garbage out of Google, while losing only 20% or so of the good sites. In my experience, you can often go 300-300 listings deep in Google and feel lucky to find a couple of listable sites. (Of course, there are categories where weeding out 99% of the garbage still leaves ... 99.99% pure garbage: "Las Vegas Hotels", anyone?)

This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 58 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved