Dmoz

[Former Member 14]

I had to start at small categories, and over time, as I got more experience, I applied for larger categories.

Are you an editor of any gambling cats?

If not, which categories?



Cheers



Dave

[Former Member 14]

Dave,

To refresh your memory, I sent you an email on the 26'th Oct 2010 regarding 777CasinoForum.com, a new domain only registered for 19 days. However it was listed in and still is: xxxhttp://www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Chats_and_Forums/

I'll append that email to this post.

Taking a look at the site, it had posts and members dating back to 2005. However checking out Thewayback Machine there is no archive.

http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://w...asinoforum.com

Fact is that domain never existed before the 8'th October 2010

Creation Date: 08-oct-2010
Expiration Date: 08-oct-2011

But in a mere 19 days it scored a dmoz listing. A listing in the category your an editor of.
I'll assume someone has obtained a forum database from some where else and dumped it into
777casinoforum.com

That's the only explanation possible to give this site members and posts dating back to 2005.

xxxhttp://www.onlinecasinoreviewer.co.uk/dmozandwebmasters.htm

The gambling branch of DMOZ is one of the more 'popular' category branches targetted by spammers.
Hence editors who edit in any area of this branch have a lot more spam submissions to wade through
than most other areas of DMOZ.

Spam can't be that bad if a site can get a dmoz listing in under 19 days of its domain being first registered.

Coincidental hmmm...
The owner of 777casinoforum.com is BetPartners who also owns qwertycasino.com and others.
qwerty (also holds a dmoz listing) and just happens to link back to your site OCR.

qwerty was purchased in May 2010
xxxhttp://betpartners.com/casino-websites/

Checking other sites within the dmoz cats and you'll see similar linking structures.
Of course you've stated all your alliances and associations have been noted to Dmoz.

But seriously, 19 days for a new domain to get a dmoz listing? Who are you trying kid here!


—– Original Message —–

From: <xxxxxxx@bathrockmedia.com>

To: “David Mxxxxxxxx” <xxxxxxx@rawfunk.com.au>

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:22 AM

Subject: Re: ODP Feedback – AussieDave – dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Chats_and_Forums/
> Hi Dave
>
> No idea when it was registered, but it does have posts going back
> several months at first glance and importantly is active.
>
> I’ll look into it in further detail when I am in the office tomorrow.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:19, David Mxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxx@rawfunk.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Whilst traversing the listing I came upon:
>> dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Chats_and_Forums/
>>
>> And the listing for xxxhttp://www.777casinoforum.com (title 777 Casino
>> Forum).
>>
>> Strangely enough I know this domain was registered on the 8′th
>> October 2010. Because and the sheer difficulty in getting into Dmoz,
>> I’m compelled to contact you and aks how is this possible, to be
>> listed in Dmoz in 19 days?
>>
>> I naturally assume it was an old domain that’s been allowed to fall
>> out registration and renewed again. However checking the wayback
>> machine and other records, including Google, the only listing I’ve
>> found are of the newly registered domain 777casinoforum.com.
>>
>> I don’t know if someone is trying to pull a shifty here but as your
>> the editor of the directory dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Chats_and_Forums/
>>
>> I thought I’d ask you what’s up?
>>
>>
>> Cheer
>>
>> Dave

---------

If the above is any indication of how sites are generally selected for dmoz listings in your gambling categories, it certainly gives people enough reason to ask curly questions and wonder what's up.

However, you take umbrage to people questioning your motives or agendas as a dmoz gambling category editor.

Instead of merely answering questions in a frank and sincere manner, you slings out at people (myself included) taking pot shots with insults, calling people names and basically digressing away from anything related to the Dmoz topic - favouring attempted character assignations instead.



Cheers



Dave

</xxxxxxx@rawfunk.com.au></xxxxxxx@rawfunk.com.au></xxxxxxx@bathrockmedia.com>

[MichaelCorfman]

Instead of merely answering questions in a frank and sincere manner, you slings out at people (myself included) taking pot shots with insults, calling people names and basically digressing away from anything related to the Dmoz topic - favouring attempted character assignations instead.

Funny AussieDave, I thought that is what you are doing here. Talk about throwing stones from a glass house. You are demonstrating, in my opinion, completely irresponsible and totally reprehensible behavior on that front.

For the record, webzcas has received advise from dmoz editors that it is not sensible to engage in discussions such as the one started here. On that basis, and on his request, I have placed him on vacation to avoid his being dragged into a discussion that was not appropriate for you to start in the first place.

If you have specific questions about dmoz and can state them in a way that are not clearly personal accusations, then I will be happy to try to answer them. But, if you persist in making what appear to be personal accusations after you have agreed to stop making them, then I will take appropriate actions.

For the record, Aussie Dave has told me that he did not have compelling documentation in his possession indicating any wrongdoing related to the link wheel he alleged before and that those who had led him to believe that there was wrongdoing were no longer supporting him and providing him with the evidence he required to feel he could continue down that path.

A few observations:

1. How soon a site is listed in dmoz is really random. There is no queue of submissions that are reviewed and acted on in some sort of first-in first-out fashion. If an editor is paying attention to a particular area, or just happens through an area just after a site was submitted, a site submission might be reviewed right away. If not, a submission might even wait for years before before being reviewed.

2. Most gambling categories are badly neglected. But there are a few that are getting attention. Attacking those who are acting reputably and doing a good job in one of the categories that is being paid attention to is just plain unreasonable.

3. Age of a site is generally not a factor in its inclusion. The content of a site and whether it belongs in or improves a category is a factor.

4. Of course editors add sites they know about that they view as suitable inclusions to categories they edit. That is what they are supposed to do and to criticize and editor for an instance where they have done a good job is completely unfair. It is however fair, in my opinion, to criticize deliberate exclusions of other sites that meet the same threshold of suitability of other sites that are included.

5. Comparing and contrasting different categories as implying corruption is not fair. Different editors have different editing responsibilities and interests. If the same editor is is acting in an inappropriate fashion in terms of accepting or excluding sites that is, of course, and issue. But if one editor is doing a good job in one category, and another category has no editor currently attending to it, then saying that implies corruption is not a rational position.

6. Remember that no editor controls a category. More senior editors can and often do move sites around from one category to another, and it is not that uncommon for such moves to include moving a site from being published in one category to being unpublished in another. It is also not uncommon for a senior editor to unpublish a site that was published by another editor as a way of providing feedback to another editor.

7. As one example of an area where websites are currently being treated with a great deal of favoritism, there is a new section for Chestnut Hill, MA, which is a neighborhood near where I live that was created this past week (http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/North_A...Chestnut_Hill/). There have been no outside submissions to it by anyone. But in the past few days I have added over 50 sites to that category and there are another 70 sites I have added and not published yet because it does take some time to create descriptions. The fact that these sites are receiving such favorable treatment does not mean I am a bad editor. And the fact that some gambling categories with no editor currently focused on them are not getting the same attention does not mean that dmoz is corrupt.

8. Fixing the gambling categories is not easy. It takes volunteers who are acting in an altruistic fashion that are willing and able to edit in that section of the directory. And they are hard to come by because the more senior editors smell potential corruption in anyone who does want to edit in those categories, so you have to be willing to work under a microscope if you edit in those areas. And then you have to be willing to accept charges of corruption from the outside by folks such as some of those posting in this thread. That is a pretty tough situation, and not one that facilitates movement to a better place.

Michael

[Former Member 14]

For the record, Aussie Dave has told me that he did not have compelling documentation in his possession indicating any wrongdoing related to the link wheel he alleged before and that those who had led him to believe that there was wrongdoing were no longer supporting him and providing him with the evidence he required to feel he could continue down that path.

Really, I don't recall saying anything of the sort...But I'd like to see you post proof to back up that statement.

The only reason these Dmoz issues are growing in interest is because people get their pockets pissed in when they ask and expect honest and frank answers. Yourself and webzcas play semantics and post in similarities conducive to real estate puffery.

However, I'm asked for proof, I post facts. But even solid hard factual proof gets steam rolled.

If anyone doesn't like being called to count on topics/issues, it's simple...don't do anything that may lend itself to look like a conflict of interest.

Anyway, if anyone wishes to add comment to my findings you can do so over at DOCH.

Edit: And "for the record"...this time round no matter how many threats of legal action come my way, nothing is coming down!!!



Cheers



Dave

[Former Member 14]

Oh and whilst I here posting...

I can't recall in any threads or posts, either yourself (Michael) or webzcas referencing the OPD gambling guidelines.

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/gambling/ these are listing rules to be used over and above the generic editor guidelines for listing gambling related sites.

Going through these editor guidelines knocks out a fair portion of sites in the Link Wheel currently holding dmoz gambling listings.



Cheers



Dave

[MichaelCorfman]

Really, I don't recall saying anything of the sort...But I'd like to see you post proof to back up that statement.

I don't have "proof" because I did not make an illegal recording of our phone conversation. But that is what I understood you to say. And I also understood you to be giving me your word that you had learned a lesson and were not going to attack others in the same way in the future. Did I understand that incorrectly too?

The only reason these Dmoz issues are growing in interest is because people get their pockets pissed in when they ask and expect honest and frank answers. Yourself and webzcas play semantics and post in similarities conducive to real estate puffery.

Can you please point out where you feel I have played semantics? I've tried to accurately present and explain matters as I understand them.

However, I'm asked for proof, I post facts. But even solid hard factual proof gets steam rolled.

That is because you have not posted any proof of any unethical behavior. In some cases you have given examples of behavior that could be explained by it being unethical, but in my opinion in all cases there has been a different explanation that makes more sense and does not rely on an unjustified conclusion of unethical behavior.

If anyone doesn't like being called to count on topics/issues, it's simple...don't do anything that may lend itself to look like a conflict of interest.

Anyway, if anyone wishes to add comment to my findings you can do so over at DOCH.

Edit: And "for the record"...this time round no matter how many threats of legal action come my way, nothing is coming down!!!

For the record, I've made not made any threats of legal action and it is not my style to do so. However, Dave did receive a legal notice to cease and desist making false and slanderous statements from a member here.

So Dave, are you saying that you will continue to engage in attacks without solid evidence? I have asked you to provide me with any evidence you might have. I make that request again. And are you saying you will not remove slanderous comments against others even if they do not stand up to scrutiny by others?

Michael

[thebookiesoffers]

100% correct for a lot of sites listed there, I am not saying all.

This linkweel exists as I have seen new sites now interlinking with a 3 way deal, great if you are in it........

a linkwheel isnt the best way to go just as 3 ways aren't either. you have to be VERY VERY careful as once you get caught, you may not get a penalty but it will be devalued to nothing and then your other activities will get looked at closely. these sort of scams/schemes or whatever you want to call them are always only short lived and proper, clean white hat seo can most of the time out do them, with or without a dmoz link

[thebookiesoffers]

BTW...Google uses the OPD as its directory or are you going to tell me Google is overrated too


Dave

google itself told you the directory was overrated when it withdrew the advice to webmasters to get a link from dmoz

[MichaelCorfman]

Oh and whilst I here posting...

I can't recall in any threads or posts, either yourself (Michael) or webzcas referencing the OPD gambling guidelines.

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/gambling/ these are listing rules to be used over and above the generic editor guidelines for listing gambling related sites.

Going through these editor guidelines knocks out a fair portion of sites in the Link Wheel currently holding dmoz gambling listings.

To be clear, those rules apply to listings made within the gambling category (www.dmoz.org/Games/Gambling) and not specifically to gambling related websites. Gambling related websites listed in other portions of the dmoz directory are not specifically subject to those guidelines (as an example, I edit in the category www.dmoz.org/Business/Arts_and_Entertainment/Gaming/ which certainly contains gambling related sites even though it is not officially subject to those guidelines. However, the general principles that are singled out with respect to listings in the gambling category do make common sense in most cases, so would be applied by more experienced editors in general, and not just to gambling-related websites.

I'm sure there are sites in the gambling categories that are not in compliance with the guidelines. For one thing, a site might have been in compliance when listed and ceased to be in compliance at some subsequent time. And there could also be instances of editors not acting appropriately. There have been instances of editors having their editing privileges revoked for not acting within the dmoz guidelines, and there could very well be editors not acting within those guidelines that have not yet been found out.

If you believe a site is listed that you feel does not meet the criteria, then I would be happy to review it and 1) work to get it removed myself if it does not meet my understanding of the guidelines, or 2) explain my understanding of the meaning of the guidelines if I view your interpretation is not consistent with the way I would interpret the guidelines. There have been instances in this forum where the meaning of specific aspects of the standard editing guidelines were misunderstood and the same could be true for the gambling-specific guidelines.

Michael

[Former Member 14]

Hi Michael,

—– Original Message —–

From: <xxxxxxx@bathrockmedia.com>

To: “David Mxxxxxxxx” <xxxxxxx@rawfunk.com.au>

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:22 AM

Subject: Re: ODP Feedback – AussieDave – dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Chats_and_Forums/
> Hi Dave
>
> No idea when it was registered, but it does have posts going back
> several months at first glance and importantly is active.
>
> I’ll look into it in further detail when I am in the office tomorrow.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:19, David Mxxxxxxxx <xxxxxxx@rawfunk.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Whilst traversing the listing I came upon:
>> dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Chats_and_Forums/
>>
>> And the listing for xxxhttp://www.777casinoforum.com (title 777 Casino
>> Forum).
>>
>> Strangely enough I know this domain was registered on the 8′th
>> October 2010. Because and the sheer difficulty in getting into Dmoz,
>> I’m compelled to contact you and aks how is this possible, to be
>> listed in Dmoz in 19 days?
>>
>> I naturally assume it was an old domain that’s been allowed to fall
>> out registration and renewed again. However checking the wayback
>> machine and other records, including Google, the only listing I’ve
>> found are of the newly registered domain 777casinoforum.com.
>>
>> I don’t know if someone is trying to pull a shifty here but as your
>> the editor of the directory dmoz.org/Games/Gambling/Chats_and_Forums/
>>
>> I thought I’d ask you what’s up?
>>
>>
>> Cheer
>>
>> Dave
</xxxxxxx@rawfunk.com.au></xxxxxxx@rawfunk.com.au></xxxxxxx@bathrockmedia.com>

I contact webzcas (editor of the chats and forum dmoz gambling cat) about a site that's listed in that category 19 days after the domain was first registered.

Further more, members and posts to this forum date/dated back to 2005. Impossible - it was first registered on the 8'th October 2010.

These aren't assumptions, they are however FACTS.

Only two ways a site could amass posts and members dating back to 2005:

• A database dumped into 777casinoforum.com from another web site's forum database.
• A program used to a bots or similar to artificiality sign-up members and make multiple posts.

However IMO the database dumping is more likely.

It would seem appropriate given the owner of this site is a GPWA private member, to start asking where the database was acquired from to populate 777CasinoForum.com?

If I was the CEO of the GPWA, that's the first answer I'd want answered.

Instead, here you are trying to shoot me down in flames

The link alliance between qwertycasino.com (the owner of 777casinoforum.com) and onlinecasinoreviewer.com, gives credence to questions being asked why 777casinoforum.com was listed in dmoz 19 days after the domain was first registered on the 8'th October 2010.

But again all these FACTS are pushes aside.

Instead the status quo of shooting the messenger prevails. That's a troubling thought, it certainly prompts questions about motivation, adding such a link listing to dmoz given all the information we've been spoon feed about obtaining a dmoz listing by you, webzcas and other OPD editors who have joined threads.

Over and above the dmoz listing of 777casinoforum.com. It begs question about where the database was acquired from.

• Was it purchased?
• Were old members of this database informed their information was being placed onto and used by another site?
• Where exactly did it come from?

To me purchasing or using a database from another site is similar to buying an email database. Unless people on that list have specifically given permission for their personal details and information to be used by a third (3'rd) party, then it's a no go zone, period.

The Dmoz listing of this site (777casinoforum.com) in 19 days from the date the domain was first registered and the database acquisition should be the focus point right now.

Not me or anything else.

However it's not the focus!
That's why people are and will continue to ask questions. Not only about the validity of dmoz but also that of the goings on in this industry and those who hold obvious conflicts of interest - the issues which get swept under the proverbial carpet, or at least try to be.



Cheers



Dave

[MichaelCorfman]

The Dmoz listing of this site (777casinoforum.com) in 19 days from the date the domain was first registered and the database acquisition should be the focus point right now.

The rapid listing of a site within a category where the listing is appropriate is a good thing, not a bad thing. While submissions might rot in some categories, there are categories where they are acted upon in a prompt fashion when there is an editor that pays attention. For example, there are categories where I have editing privileges where submissions for a site would rarely sit for more than a week or two before they were processed.

Also, the questions you raise above regarding the source of the information might be interesting questions for GPWA members, but they are not factors that are generally considered important from the perspective of being a dmoz editor. Indeed, there are those editors who would say consideration of such factors is inappropriate and inconsistent with editing guidelines.

In order to raise an ethical question about the rapid listing for this site, you would need to show that 1) the site was not appropriate for a listing in the listed category or 2) it was listed in unreasonable preference to other sites that were submitted and considered for listing in the same category in the same timeframe.

Listing a site an editor knows about when the types of issues I have outlined above are *NOT* present is considered perfectly reasonable, even if the editor is aware of who owns and operates the site and even if they like that person.

So, to demonstrate an issue you would need to identify a site that was submitted for consideration in the same category that was not treated fairly by comparison. Identifying a site that was treated fairly does not demonstrate an issue.

And what appears unfair looking in on dmoz might not be unfair on the inside looking out. There are, for example, websites that are prohibited from being listed for various reasons, for example, because of abusive behavior with respect to dmoz submissions. There are editors that can reverse such decisions when appropriate, but neither webzcas nor I can list such sites ourselves.

Michael

[Fergie]

Only two ways a site could amass posts and members dating back to 2005:

• A database dumped into 777casinoforum.com from another web site's forum database.
• A program used to a bots or similar to artificiality sign-up members and make multiple posts.

However IMO the database dumping is more likely.

It would seem appropriate given the owner of this site is a GPWA private member, to start asking where the database was acquired from to populate 777CasinoForum.com?

If I was the CEO of the GPWA, that's the first answer I'd want answered.

I can't see how that's any of our business at all. Database could have come from another site that the owner of 777CasinoForum owns. Still, nobody's business but theirs.

I also don't see how you can compare it to email database sales. Emails are often spam. A forum is visited and joined voluntarily. If the forum is moved to a new url, then the members can see that, and opt out of membership.

p.s. I personally feel that publishing private emails is in bad taste, to say the least. I think it could be seen as unethical behaviour. This is an online forum, not a court of law. Did you get permission of your correspondent to publish his words before posting them? They don't prove anything, so what was the point, except to demonstrate that you'll go to any length it takes to 'prove' a point, even if it involves disrespectful behaviour?

[Former Member 14]

I think it could be seen as unethical behaviour.

And you'd be an expert on that...
Given the fact I called you to count over using another affiliate forum to PM members to lure them to another affiliate forum

Though, doesn't surprise me you'd have ZERO issue with anything relating to database usage, no matter where it came from...sheesh!


Ps... Seems your still holding a grudge over that forum issue...
Sorry but if I'm expected to be accountable, so too is everyone else, including you!


Cheers

Dave

[Former Member 14]

you'll go to any length it takes to 'prove' a point

It's a damn side better than spreading hearsay and being victim to uncalled for character assignation attempts.

But in your usual modus operandi - no yellow or red cards raised by you when fabricated BS is flying around, directed at anyone who stands and speaks out about questionably ethics.

I don't know why you bother trying to get one up on me Fergie...It seems every time you try you end up looking more clueless than you did before.


Cheers



Dave

[arkyt]

Over and above the dmoz listing of 777casinoforum.com. It begs question about where the database was acquired from.

I could be wrong but I think the site added a domain name and then migrated to a newer forum software. Nothing really wrong with that Dave, least not in my opinion. [ triple7s73714.yuku.com ]

As to how the site got a listing in dmoz so quickly thats another story all together. The site does provide a homepage link to the editors site, maybe that had something to do with it?

In fact 777casinoforum appears to link to 2 sites in its sidebar > onlinecasinosguide.co.uk/ which happens to be the editors site and to qwertycasino.com/ This site just so happens to also be listed in this editors catagory AND it also just happens to provide a link to the editors site from its homepage too. Nope no favors going on here folks - get back to work on trying to compete with those who have unfair advantages and clearly use them to their fullest!

[Former Member 14]

I could be wrong but I think the site added a domain name and then migrated to a newer forum software. Nothing really wrong with that Dave, least not in my opinion. [ triple7s73714.yuku.com ]

If that's how it happen, then yes I agree, that's ethically ok.

As to how the site got a listing in dmoz so quickly thats another story all together. The site does provide a homepage link to the editors site, maybe that had something to do with it?

In fact 777casinoforum appears to link to 2 sites in its sidebar > onlinecasinosguide.co.uk/ which happens to be the editors site and to qwertycasino.com/ This site just so happens to also be listed in this editors catagory AND it also just happens to provide a link to the editors site from its homepage too. Nope no favors going on here folks - get back to work on trying to compete with those who have unfair advantages and clearly use them to their fullest!

Yes I just checked those links out...Here are screen caps to prove yet another FACT. I've highlighted the anchor text links which show their URL location in the left hand footer of the browser screen cap.

Yep nothing going on here...


Cheers



Dave









Edit:
No idea how the EGO images got there but the system wont allow me to remove it.

[Fergie]

And you'd be an expert on that...
Given the fact I called you to count over using another affiliate forum to PM members to lure them to another affiliate forum

Though, doesn't surprise me you'd have ZERO issue with anything relating to database usage, no matter where it came from...sheesh!


Ps... Seems your still holding a grudge over that forum issue...
Sorry but if I'm expected to be accountable, so too is everyone else, including you!


Cheers

Dave

Here you are again accusing me of the same thing that was found to be false.

If you were paying attention, the accusations against me were proven false and I received a public apology from the person responsible. Not surprising you had jumped upon the bandwagon while the insults against me were flying, but did not ever apologize. I still don't understand that. That is NOT ethical behaviour, AussieDave.

I did invite you to a new forum, but it was with the expectations that this new forum, a private forum, was not in competition with any other forum, as we would talk about and act against ethical issues facing our industry. I was mistaken at the time about your character. I thought that you would be interested in forming a small group that would make a difference in this industry. You misunderstood and went on a rampage against me - in public of course. You seem to jump to conclusions and stick to them like a dog with a bone, regardless of the facts. I wouldn't be surprised if you started the whole episode.

Anyway, because of that, I have no respect for you, and in my opinion, you have zero credibility. The following statement by you proves that you know nothing of me at all:

But in your usual modus operandi - no yellow or red cards raised by you when fabricated BS is flying around, directed at anyone who stands and speaks out about questionably ethics.

I don't know why you bother trying to get one up on me Fergie...It seems every time you try you end up looking more clueless than you did before.

If somebody with credibility, whom I respect, were to step forward to level accusations of DMOZ fraud on one of our members, I would take it seriously. But it wasn't somebody I respected - it was you! Hell, you've already Demonstrated that you make accusations with no proof, and seemingly for the sheer joy of it. I can't take what you say seriously. Sorry.

[Former Member 14]

Here is a screen cap of qwertycasino.com and its link to onlinecasinoreviewer.com the site owned by the dmoz editor where qwertycasino.com and 777casinoforum.com hold listings.


Cheers



Dave

[MichaelCorfman]

Yes I just checked those links out...Here are screen caps to prove yet another FACT. I've highlighted the anchor text links which show their URL location in the left hand footer of the browser screen cap.

Just to be clear, one of the links you highlight in green above is a link to another website owned by the same webmaster. So, I'm not at all sure why you highlighted that particular link.

I agree that the other link is to a website of a dmoz editor. I certainly appreciate that could raise possible concerns, but it does not prove anything.

As I stated earlier in this thread, what is required to raise a real issue is evidence that other sites submitted to the subject category are being descriminated against. Are there any other forum sites appropriate to the subject category that are missing? If there are, and submissions of such sites are rejected, then you have a legitimate issue to raise in my opinion. Otherwise this is just pure speculation without appropriate evidence of a real issue as opposed to an imagined issue.

Michael

[arkyt]

Just to be clear, one of the links you highlight in green above is a link to another website owned by the same webmaster. So, I'm not at all sure why you highlighted that particular link.

I agree that the other link is to a website of a dmoz editor. I certainly appreciate that could raise possible concerns, but it does not prove anything.

Let me "truly be clear" not just say it ... and while I hate to speak for him, I think AussieDave included that other site, because that other site is also listed in the editors dmoz category AND it also links to the editors site on its home page as well. You see its not one level, one site ... its dozens of sites multi levels deep .... Course, I guess thats the kind of speculation that offers no real proof of anything fishy at all. I might agree with you if this was not an ongoing theme, but thats not the case as it very much is an ongoing theme!