Why are Editors not reviewed or tested on their "definitions" of Dmoz's rules? Two of them <editor names removed> were doing nothing but mocking and goading the person asking the question here, and their definitions are contrary to Dmoz's own: http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=55182
There should be a way to reprimand editors for such behavior. There should also be a way to have them reviewed based on statements they've made as to their own inaccurate (and contradictory to Dmoz's own) definitions of certain phrases that Dmoz uses in its terms.
This shows users that Dmoz has no respect for them, and that the integrity of Dmoz is questionable. This may be why google doesn't care as much if you are in Dmoz now. These 2 editors clearly need to be removed, as they have no idea how to define "related" or "submitting a site more than once". If they had their way, there would only be 1 website in each category!
A company's websites cannot be called "related" just because they are owned by the same company. That is asinine. How many websites do you think that cnet has in your directory right this moment? Does that make mp3 . com and news . com . com related just because they are owned by the same company?
If they were not qualified because they are "related to computers", then Dmoz would not have so many computer categories.
"Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed" is how Dmoz defines "related". As i said in this post, they were 3 completely different websites that provided 3 completely different services, and NONE OF THEM WERE LISTED.
There should be a way to reprimand editors for such behavior. There should also be a way to have them reviewed based on statements they've made as to their own inaccurate (and contradictory to Dmoz's own) definitions of certain phrases that Dmoz uses in its terms.
This shows users that Dmoz has no respect for them, and that the integrity of Dmoz is questionable. This may be why google doesn't care as much if you are in Dmoz now. These 2 editors clearly need to be removed, as they have no idea how to define "related" or "submitting a site more than once". If they had their way, there would only be 1 website in each category!
A company's websites cannot be called "related" just because they are owned by the same company. That is asinine. How many websites do you think that cnet has in your directory right this moment? Does that make mp3 . com and news . com . com related just because they are owned by the same company?
If they were not qualified because they are "related to computers", then Dmoz would not have so many computer categories.
"Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed" is how Dmoz defines "related". As i said in this post, they were 3 completely different websites that provided 3 completely different services, and NONE OF THEM WERE LISTED.
