Comments on: DMOZ – Still Sucks and Now with Extortion!

By: Link Wheel

Link Wheel — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:22:05 +0000

I think DMoz is quite good directory to submit your website and get abacklink from authority website. I would love to have my website listed in DMoz and drive traffic.
One wouldn’t say that DMoz period is over as this website is still growing and moving forward. This is the best directory on the internet.

By: Chris Arkwright

Chris Arkwright — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:38:09 +0000

As a DMOZ editor, I can assuredly tell you that there are not enough editors to cover the HUGE directory. The reason it takes so long to get listed is that it is completely volunteer-driven, and people work on it in their spare time. The costs would be far too great if they were to hire editors to cover all the categories, thus they would have to close. If more people volunteered, things would get done faster.

Also, keep in mind that DMOZ clearly states in their TOU…

We may edit, move, or delete any content on the ODP (including content that you have provided) or terminate all or part of the ODP without notice or liability for any reason at our sole discretion…

As to the claim of demanding $5,000…I have a hard time even considering that as a possible scenario.

DMOZ is still a useful directory, but they have high standards, which pisses some people off… (Usually the same people who submit the their URL 50 times over 3 months and wonder why their site isn’t getting listed.)

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:13:48 +0000

This is an interesting article. DMOZ does get a lot of disdain due to their slow processing times (or not processing at all). They are terribly understaffed, and even a past CEO stated that in order for DMOZ to move into the future and follow its standards the editors should be paid.

By: Tom Barr

Tom Barr — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:14:06 +0000

I didn’t see http://www.shoemoney.com listed in the last couple of months but I did have a conversation with someone well known in the affiliate world who was a DMOZ editor (he went inactive) and he stated that he published http://www.shoemoney.com in DMOZ and someone else removed recently.

And yes, shoemoney takes every opportunity to link bait but that doesn’t mean the storiy is not true.

By: pittfall

pittfall — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:24:09 +0000

Eric, I was not "duped" to give a link to Shoe... and in recognition of your comment regarding his disclaimer, you may want to view mine too: commenting policy. If you feel that I am one of the "look of stupid bloggers" feel free to correct your grammar before commenting. However, if you would like to discuss the topic, rather than go on about a rant on Shoemoney, then your comments are welcome.

By: Eric-the-Bun

Eric-the-Bun — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:41:53 +0000

Yet another blogger duped by Shoemoney to get a link back.
On his site Shoemoney says ‘Please make sure you have read this disclaimer before acting on this post.’

The disclaimer says ‘You should assume everything written on this blog is a lie. You should assume I have motivation for linking to everything on this page and will benefit from it somehow. … You should come up with your own thoughts and opinions and not trust some stupid blogger.’

Seems there are a look of stupid bloggers out there.

By: pittfall

pittfall — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:09:19 +0000

Please Note:
I find it a rather unfortunate thing when people go as far as to write a valid comment and yet fail to leave a correct email address for response. Dave apparently doesn’t want to open a forum on this topic… this too is unfortunate! I love to discuss topics and really enjoy a debate on occasion, that is why I open comments to everyone.

Dave, if you happen to come back to check my response to your comment, I would like to welcome you back and also to give you the opportunity to respond to my comment. If you feel that you don’t want to do so in this particular forum, feel free to email me directly: stephen.pitts@gmail.com

Now back to your regularly scheduled program

By: pittfall

pittfall — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:52:35 +0000

Dave,
First, I would like to thank you for your comment. I am sure that you could reasonably expect a rash response or flat removal of you comment, however, you have a valid point (and that is more important and I don’t feel that it should be edited)!

I can neither confirm or deny your allegations or Shoemoney’s (as stated above). However, it does not change my opinion that the ODP, noble cause and all, has survived well beyond it’s use by date.

What I am not saying:
I’m not saying that the idea or ideals of the ODP are not valid or valuable.

What I am saying:
The method is far beyond it’s prime and the ODP has outlived it’s usefulness in it’s current form.

The better question still remains:
Can dmoz (also known as ODP) recover from the years of neglect?

By: dave

dave — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:20:01 +0000

So, where in the records at archive.org, or elsewhere, do you see the site as ever being listed at the ODP?

Ah, a feed URL was listed for just a couple of weeks, and that was more than 6 months ago.

The HTML site has never been listed at any time in the last 4 years.

Further digging reveals that the ODP banned the site from ever being listed, way back in 2005. There is much comment about that on several forums.

It soon also becomes apparent that the webmaster has already been aware that he is banned, and has been aware of that for more than 2 years.

So it looks like there is a big problem here?

How can someone who already knew that the sites were never going to be listed, now claim that someone threatened to remove stuff from the directory – stuff that was never in the directory.

It is a fake story.

Show us that there was anything in the directory to BE removed.

There wasn’t.