Dmoz is a joke all the way!

This directory is doomed for extinction, it is so dishonest it makes me puke.


I have submitted many QUALITY websites during the years (and I know what quality is: I am no white or black hat seo of any kind, but I just work hard on delivering great original content, that's all).


Never accepted, not even half.


Then I have to find poor websites like this? http://www.chiantistorico.com/ and you can be sure it's always been this bad, I used the wayback machine and checked it out.


So, I would like to know the corrupted editor that volunteered to approve his own website.


I got many more examples and I bet any one on here does, but that one is enough to make my point and won't waste more time on this.


This is an elite directory project. Sad.

If you'd actually taken the trouble to check it out at archive.org , you might not have posted so aggressively. As it is, you lose your bet.

However, the site is currently under construction and so I've temporarily removed its listing. Thanks for the info .

The site was listed some time in 2009. Did you look at the Internet Archive results from 2008 (the latest it currently goes)? It seems to me to have quite extensive listings of accommodation and restaurants in the region is covers, and also claimed to be the "Official Site of the Tourist Information Offices of Castellina in Chianti, Gaiole in Chianti and Radda in Chianti."

Are you sure it wouldn't have been listable under our site selection cirteria at that time?

I don't believe that the editor who listed the site has any connection to it, and with many more listings in the directory than editors, it can't be the case that every editor is so self-centred that they list just their own sites. Sure, we get some editors who try to do so, but that's contrary to our Conflic of Interest Guidelines, and so they don't remain editors for very long. The vast majority of our listings were added by editors with no affiliation with them, who reviewed the sites and found that they were (at that time) suitable for inclusion in the directory.

As I'm sure you can appreciate we get a lot of site suggestions from the public. While we aim to review them all eventually, the small number of philanthropically-minded editors who volunteer to review the sites means it may take some time to get round to any particular suggestion. Editors are human, so occasional mistakes can be made, but if you've suggested listable sites and they haven't been listed yet, then the overwhelmingly most likely reason is simply that they haven't been reviewed yet. There's not much we can do about the number of volunteer editors, and it's a shame that there are lots in the webmaster community that are happy to maon about the ODP and demand that their sites are listed ahead of all the other suggestions, but not happy to volunteer to help the directory themselves.