Webwork - 9:31 pm on Sep 13, 2012 (gmt 0)
scooter, Roger's, a/k/a martinibuster's, point was well made back then as now.
OTOH, I think jimnoble has also managed to drive home the point that the ODP "wasn't then" and isn't now what many in the SEO or internet marketing community thought it was or thought it was meant to be. Marketers and SEO saw DMOZ as a potential source of link juice or a SERP's friendly endorsement by a (potentially or once) trusted authority. Therefore they wanted in, they whined/whinged when they failed to get in, the paid editors, they became editors to do favors for themselves and their friends, etc. Lots of history from back in the day when Google cited Yahoo or DMOZ as a source of editorial review that their algo might consider in ranking sites. To the best of my knowledge Google has been steadily moving away from the rules and methods of ranking sites in those days. Worse, SEOs see Google increasingly favoring its own properties in the SERPs - so even the best SEO can still "get hometowned".
According to jimnoble the links/listings in DMOZ might be better grasped as being the work product of ~serious/concerned hobbyists who - as volunteers - work on their hobby (donate their time) and who are guided by editorial standards that give them a considerable degree of personal freedom.
And, yes, over the years there have been reports of abuses, but abuse, as a subject of discussion, has been beaten to death - so we rarely revisit "that topic".
Still, a link is a link is a link, so one ought to get them wherever they might be found - especially those that may be of some small value (versus junk or spammed links). Judged in that light I believe a DMOZ listing is worth the small effort of submitting a site x1, walking away, and not looking back.