DMOZ Top Listed Domains

dvduval · 07-04-2005, 08:53 PM

I know there are some opportunists that are editors, and to some degree there are checks and balances, but I believe certain Metas pretty much do whatever they want. Some of these can be justified, so please don't think I am saying these are not supposed to be there (judge for yourself). Here is a listing of the domains with the most listings in DMOZ:
http://www.whois.sc/internet-statist...-listings.html
If you look, I think you will find some real winners (sarcastic tone of course).

growler · 07-04-2005, 09:32 PM

You seem to be cross posting this everywhere - it's not exactly anything new that you found and it's pretty meaningless.

dvduval · 07-04-2005, 09:47 PM

Yes, I saw the cross reply

So I agree with you that it is nothing new, but I don't agree about the meaningless part.

sitetutor · 07-04-2005, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by growler

You seem to be cross posting this everywhere - it's not exactly anything new that you found and it's pretty meaningless.

I wouldn't call it meaningless. There are 1,000s of cnn.com pages where the content has gotten moved. It is meaningless if you don't care or if you accept bad decisions to be made for you and you have decided to live with them no matter what.
In that case you seem to be great for the DMOZ editor position.

Johan007 · 07-09-2005, 09:51 AM

Yay I am on page 6 wooowhooo and another back link from whois

It doesn’t mean that much though because it all comes from the same ip.

Ok gloating over! If your not getting listed in Dmoz let me know and I can advise you and also take a look at your URL editorial history if needed. Please be advised my own portfolio is still not listed after 4 (yes 4) years and is sitting in unreviewed. Please also know that Dmoz is no magic bullet for ranking. It has the same value as any other PR related authority site.

dvduval · 07-09-2005, 01:36 PM

It seems that DMOZ has become a private directory, and they can pretty much do whatever they want. This issue isn't going away. If you think that people are "volunteering" because they want to benefit the greater good, then I think you might want to think twice. Sure, there are some honest editors (God bless them), but there is also large scale corruption that should be exposed.

Here is a good list for you:

Quote:

1046 183 COOKINGCACHE.COM
1118 172 MOVIESFORGUYS.COM
1186 160 ALLSEXSITES.COM
1418 132 WORLDWIDEWEBPORNO.COM
1433 132 ALL-FREE-QUALITY-PICS.COM
1492 126 PORNZITE.COM
734 251 CHOICEHOTELS.COM
742 248 SAFESHOPPER.COM
789 234 POPKORNJUNKIE.COM
902 210 A1VACATIONS.COM
910 208 FREE-SEX-PICS-FREE-SEX-PICS-FREE-SEX-PICS.COM
993 193 WORLDSEXPLACE.COM
2085 89 SIXCONTINENTSHOTELS.COM
2151 86 SEX-MARKS.COM
2199 84 PETFINDER.COM
2246 82 XTRASEX.COM
2282 81 THE-STATIONERY-OFFICE.CO.UK
2287 81 RAWAMATEURVIDEO.COM
2294 81 HOUSE-HUNTING.COM
2295 81 FOODNETWORK.COM
4641 39 ALLNAKEDCELEBS.NET
4700 39 NUDE-SEX-FREE-PORN-PICS.COM
6762 27 TEENSEX-FREE-NUDE-PORN-PICS.COM

It's almost shocking to look at, isn't it?
Who gave people the right to list porn (clearly for profit) as much as they want?
(Answer: It's a private directory. They can do whatever they want.)

**G10** · 07-09-2005, 04:59 PM

Dude, the best you can do is to forget about dmoz.

Most of the editors are respectable people but there are a few that are ruining this for the rest (as you pointed out).

Some categories are not even being edited anymore as they don't have enough people to sort it.

The idea behind dmoz is very good and it did have a lot of potential but I think that it is slowly going down the path of the dodo.

Johan007 · 07-11-2005, 01:16 AM

Not all of those sites are porn and so what if they are. Dmoz has a special place for it. Sure there is some corruption but it does get tackled and most of the complaints are from webmasters with commercial or rather rubbish websites. Webmasters get overly obsessed with their own site and don’t look at it without bias. You should see 80% of the crap I have to delete from Dmoz.

Give the Dmoz editors a break some of them do an unbelievable job probably more voluntary work than most of us do for our regular jobs and the majority of Dmoz editors do what they can… if your still not happy with the quality then use Zeal. Zeal is a better directory than Dmoz becuase of the way it is structured.

Thanol · 07-11-2005, 06:47 AM

I agree. There are some great editors out there then there are some eh ones.

Zeal, is kind of stagnant at the moment. Half of the top 100 contributers this week have only added 1 entry. Looksmart really doesn't seem to care much about the directory anymore. I swear I haven't seen a LS editor post on the Zeal message boards in forever.

**G10** · 07-11-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johan007

Give the Dmoz editors a break some of them do an unbelievable job probably more voluntary work than most of us do for our regular jobs and the majority of Dmoz editors do what they can… if your still not happy with the quality then use Zeal. Zeal is a better directory than Dmoz becuase of the way it is structured.

Johan007, I am not trying to cause any offence here and I completely agree that most of the editors are doing a fantastic job and also that it is just a few that ruin the reputation of the rest.

I am just whining because I have been waiting a while to get mine listed whilst some other people I know got theirs listed with the help of some coins. And no, this isn't just one of those rumours, the people that got theirs listed are some of my friends busineses.

My whining has ended, I will now carry on waiting again.

dvduval · 07-17-2005, 09:20 AM

Yes, there are some great editors, indeed (bless you).
But is also evident that there major problems.

You have people "volunteering" to do an activity that offers economic opportunity. And it is evident as you look at many of these sites with multiple listings that economic gain is part of the strategy. So quality is sacrificed, often quite dramatically.

The problem is the model that depends on free labor, honesty, yet where economic gain is prevalent...not a good mix.

**John Scott** · 11-24-2005, 08:55 PM

I find it revealing.

SEO2006 · 01-07-2006, 08:09 AM

oOo - nice list!

Would love to be on that. I might ask some of the other Editors about it on the dmoz forum.

**G10** · 01-07-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEO2006

oOo - nice list!

Would love to be on that. I might ask some of the other Editors about it on the dmoz forum.

Brilliant,

While you're there, see how my DoseUK listing is coming along as it seems to be forgotten about.

sitetutor · 01-07-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEO2006

oOo - nice list!

Would love to be on that. I might ask some of the other Editors about it on the dmoz forum.

You will learn fast grasshopper

**John Scott** · 01-07-2006, 05:15 PM

20 listings for DOGBREEDINFO.COM and v7n.com can't even get our index page listed?

WTF???

sitetutor · 01-07-2006, 05:27 PM

IMO that is the good old "list of ex-editor owned sites" effect coming into play. An editor needs to have some serious gutts to swim against the stream and list it in there. Unfortunately I have not met a lot of DMOZ editors with the courage to do that.

**John Scott** · 01-07-2006, 06:09 PM

I would agree. They say that list is not a blacklist, but it sure acts like one.