<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DMOZ &#8211; Is it Really That Important?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://raygen.info/blog/index.php/2009/11/10/dmoz-is-it-really-that-important/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://raygen.info/blog/2009/11/10/dmoz-is-it-really-that-important/</link>
	<description>Internet Stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:08:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: raygen79</title>
		<link>http://raygen.info/blog/2009/11/10/dmoz-is-it-really-that-important/comment-page-1/#comment-705</link>
		<dc:creator>raygen79</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raygen.info/blog/?p=252#comment-705</guid>
		<description>Well I appreciate your comments. Its good to get a dmoz editor to speak on my blog. I do not believe ALL editors at dmoz are corrupt, but there are always a few bad apples in everything. I do however appreciate your honestly and integrity for speaking your mind here. The term &quot;high quality&quot; is extremely vague term, what one considers high quality another may consider garbage. i have seen no real logical pattern in some of the categries that dmoz excepts sites. 

for example, I have seen many sites in dmoz categories that are MFA sites, and are quite literally spam. i have seen many sites with no ads at all and good content get rejected. It makes no sense. I would really like to see some clear and concise definitions for such broad terms. I would also like to see dmoz be much more open and transparent in its goals. why is everything handled behind closed oors in secret with a big hush behind it? secrecy seems paramount in the ODP, and that is very disheartening in my opinion.

again, thanks for your comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well I appreciate your comments. Its good to get a dmoz editor to speak on my blog. I do not believe ALL editors at dmoz are corrupt, but there are always a few bad apples in everything. I do however appreciate your honestly and integrity for speaking your mind here. The term &#8220;high quality&#8221; is extremely vague term, what one considers high quality another may consider garbage. i have seen no real logical pattern in some of the categries that dmoz excepts sites. </p>
<p>for example, I have seen many sites in dmoz categories that are MFA sites, and are quite literally spam. i have seen many sites with no ads at all and good content get rejected. It makes no sense. I would really like to see some clear and concise definitions for such broad terms. I would also like to see dmoz be much more open and transparent in its goals. why is everything handled behind closed oors in secret with a big hush behind it? secrecy seems paramount in the ODP, and that is very disheartening in my opinion.</p>
<p>again, thanks for your comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DK</title>
		<link>http://raygen.info/blog/2009/11/10/dmoz-is-it-really-that-important/comment-page-1/#comment-692</link>
		<dc:creator>DK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:41:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raygen.info/blog/?p=252#comment-692</guid>
		<description>Your comments perhaps are true that the directory is made to be more important than it is.
But the suggestion that editors prevent competitor listings, at least in many cases, is not.
I am a dmoz editor and I have added many competitor sites. I consider my role as an editor separate - like putting on a new hate. My job as an editor is to list the high quality web sites.
That does unfortunately lead to a lot of angst out there against dmoz, because frankly, 99% percent of the submissions are not good quality. They have missing huge gaps of content, spam ridden  etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your comments perhaps are true that the directory is made to be more important than it is.<br />
But the suggestion that editors prevent competitor listings, at least in many cases, is not.<br />
I am a dmoz editor and I have added many competitor sites. I consider my role as an editor separate &#8211; like putting on a new hate. My job as an editor is to list the high quality web sites.<br />
That does unfortunately lead to a lot of angst out there against dmoz, because frankly, 99% percent of the submissions are not good quality. They have missing huge gaps of content, spam ridden  etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dmoz Directory &#187; DMOZ – Is it Really That Important?</title>
		<link>http://raygen.info/blog/2009/11/10/dmoz-is-it-really-that-important/comment-page-1/#comment-63</link>
		<dc:creator>Dmoz Directory &#187; DMOZ – Is it Really That Important?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:24:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raygen.info/blog/?p=252#comment-63</guid>
		<description>[...] post: DMOZ – Is it Really That Important?    Comments [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] post: DMOZ – Is it Really That Important?    Comments [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
