not interested in backlinks?..did you take a second to think about the context that i mentioned it in???????i was replying to the question on whether a site is part of a spam network..in that case a backlinks check is VERY useful!!!!!!thats why this guy spoke about backlinks..maybe for once you DO understand why someone is talking about backlinks...comments like that make me dispair that search engines give such importance to dmoz when some editors clearly walk around with a chip on their shoulder...btw...nobody has yet pointed to a single site with unique content in the section that this thread refers to...i can conclude that indeed..there is no logic or consistency being applied to listings and removals..even worse..first we are told you must have unique content..then when i point out unique content it is then called spam?????
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
>> not interested in backlinks?..did you take a second to think about the context that i mentioned it in? <<
Yes I did. Perhaps you haven't thought it through sufficiently. It isn't hard for anyone to register a whole bunch of domains under various false names and addresses, and then to use each one to link to all of the others. A quick check in Google would then show lots of links all from 'independent' sites. I've just been involved in an investigation in which one guy had dozens of sites, all registered in different names and in different countries. Anyone that had done a quick check would not have picked it up.
Given that it's so easy to do, and it's so hard to find out who really owns a site, what is the point of editors checking backlinks? A list of sites registered to different people is no guarantee of independent approval. Even if they genuinely were independent, the links might have been paid for, or just part of a link exchange. Just linking to someone doesn't mean you approve of the site or it's contents.
But you can forget all of that, there's simply no point in an editor checking for backlinks anyway. We list sites based purely on their content. We don't care what other people might think of the site, we don't care how many people use it, all we care about is what we can see on it.
>> some editors clearly walk around with a chip on their shoulder <<
I have no idea what you mean by this. If you believe that you are being persecuted by an editor, you should contact staff and explain the situation to them.
Yes I did. Perhaps you haven't thought it through sufficiently. It isn't hard for anyone to register a whole bunch of domains under various false names and addresses, and then to use each one to link to all of the others. A quick check in Google would then show lots of links all from 'independent' sites. I've just been involved in an investigation in which one guy had dozens of sites, all registered in different names and in different countries. Anyone that had done a quick check would not have picked it up.
Given that it's so easy to do, and it's so hard to find out who really owns a site, what is the point of editors checking backlinks? A list of sites registered to different people is no guarantee of independent approval. Even if they genuinely were independent, the links might have been paid for, or just part of a link exchange. Just linking to someone doesn't mean you approve of the site or it's contents.
But you can forget all of that, there's simply no point in an editor checking for backlinks anyway. We list sites based purely on their content. We don't care what other people might think of the site, we don't care how many people use it, all we care about is what we can see on it.
>> some editors clearly walk around with a chip on their shoulder <<
I have no idea what you mean by this. If you believe that you are being persecuted by an editor, you should contact staff and explain the situation to them.
hum...seems im just descending in a squabble...that was never my intention..i will simply ask this one last time...if you judge sites simply on their merits..and if sites that are affiliates need to have some unique content or not be mostly affiliate links...how do the sites in this section square with that...they do not have unique content..if they do please point it out..they are 99 percent affiliates...so...im sorry some of this got personal..it was not my intention..and serves no purpose..i was simply trying to find some logical rules being applied...but they are not...but site may be the spammiest, worst and most useless affiliate site ever...i dont think it is but you are entitled to your opinions...even if it was....it is no different to every single site in that section...i was not refused a listing..i was listed then dropped....i was the only one dropped..i was told because i was an affiliate..this made no sense given that a 404 site was left..and every other site was an affiliate....nobody has been able to show any difference in my site to any other...either we should all be out..or we all should be left..the only reason i can see for being dropped was because a different editor had placed my site there...this thread has convinced me of that...i apologise for any personal comments...but i seem to be tarred with a general brush of spam..simply because it seems your are now guilty untill proven innocent....
>i seem to be tarred with a general brush of spam..simply because it seems your are now guilty untill proven innocent.
Guilty? We don't do the juridicial thing. We just, um, list websites. Websites may be illegal or legal -- we mostly don't try to judge that. They may be good or evil -- each editor chooses something good to do, and leaves the evil for someone else. They may have content or not: now THAT we judge. No-content = unlistable, and yes, every site is unlistable until proven otherwise (by a search of the site resulting in some unique content.)
Editors' judgment isn't perfect, so we have places like this forum, where you can question that judgment (and your -- this IS a personal pronoun -- questions, at least in part, have resulted in some improvement, if not yet the changes you were most interested in). And the issue isn't closed yet: the editors are volunteers, and this is not the only open issue. A little patience, a little understanding of what constitutes relevant detail (which is part of what people have been trying to explain), a lot of carving away of irrelevant detail, and we'll make progress.
Guilty? We don't do the juridicial thing. We just, um, list websites. Websites may be illegal or legal -- we mostly don't try to judge that. They may be good or evil -- each editor chooses something good to do, and leaves the evil for someone else. They may have content or not: now THAT we judge. No-content = unlistable, and yes, every site is unlistable until proven otherwise (by a search of the site resulting in some unique content.)
Editors' judgment isn't perfect, so we have places like this forum, where you can question that judgment (and your -- this IS a personal pronoun -- questions, at least in part, have resulted in some improvement, if not yet the changes you were most interested in). And the issue isn't closed yet: the editors are volunteers, and this is not the only open issue. A little patience, a little understanding of what constitutes relevant detail (which is part of what people have been trying to explain), a lot of carving away of irrelevant detail, and we'll make progress.
Please take your rants elsewhere - apeuro
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.