<?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: Is Dmoz dead or editors active?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.macronimous.com/is-dmoz-dead-or-editors-corrupted/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.macronimous.com/is-dmoz-dead-or-editors-corrupted/</link>
	<description>Business, IT and offshore development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:36:54 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: StevenH</title>
		<link>http://blog.macronimous.com/is-dmoz-dead-or-editors-corrupted/comment-page-1/#comment-3261</link>
		<dc:creator>StevenH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.macronimous.com/is-dmoz-dead-or-editors-corrupted/#comment-3261</guid>
		<description>Agreed, and to top it off the majority of the editors carry an elitist attitude that&#039;s beyond belief. I&#039;ve yet to see any of them post an acceptable excuse for the state of utter shambles the directory is in. What is really sad is that you can find posts dating back to 1999 asking questions about why sites aren&#039;t being added and dead links being pruned... 10 years of marginal management. Astonishing that Google still associates themselves with it.

Here&#039;s an interesting post if anyone is interested:
http://www.seome.com/about-seome/blog/13-blog/61-getting-listed-on-dmoz

Cheers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed, and to top it off the majority of the editors carry an elitist attitude that&#8217;s beyond belief. I&#8217;ve yet to see any of them post an acceptable excuse for the state of utter shambles the directory is in. What is really sad is that you can find posts dating back to 1999 asking questions about why sites aren&#8217;t being added and dead links being pruned&#8230; 10 years of marginal management. Astonishing that Google still associates themselves with it.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an interesting post if anyone is interested:<br />
<a href="http://www.seome.com/about-seome/blog/13-blog/61-getting-listed-on-dmoz" rel="nofollow">http://www.seome.com/about-seome/blog/13-blog/61-getting-listed-on-dmoz</a></p>
<p>Cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike  Toronto</title>
		<link>http://blog.macronimous.com/is-dmoz-dead-or-editors-corrupted/comment-page-1/#comment-2577</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike  Toronto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.macronimous.com/is-dmoz-dead-or-editors-corrupted/#comment-2577</guid>
		<description>That is what I was wondering also! 
Tried so many times to get my sites added to DmoZ - no results...silence...dead silence. I have never received any paid addition offers though I have to admit I would consider paying to make sure my sites will be added to Dmoz directories).

and after all - is Dmoz THAT important? I receive good results without being added to its dir&#039;s so maybe it is overrated? used to be good once but useless now? obsolete? =) RIP

Mike </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is what I was wondering also!<br />
Tried so many times to get my sites added to DmoZ &#8211; no results&#8230;silence&#8230;dead silence. I have never received any paid addition offers though I have to admit I would consider paying to make sure my sites will be added to Dmoz directories).</p>
<p>and after all &#8211; is Dmoz THAT important? I receive good results without being added to its dir&#8217;s so maybe it is overrated? used to be good once but useless now? obsolete? =) RIP</p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
