| 3:21 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As far as I know you will not get a response. But you can look at the status. Go back to the report abuse form and at the bottom is a "check status" option.
The problems you have with the content of an other website can only be solved by you and the owner of that site.
| 3:56 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If I were you I'd attempt to focus your official ODP complaint on your enemy's actual behavior as an editor. In other words, if he has deleted your organization's website from the ODP, you need to directly say so. None of the things you're complaining about here are stuff the ODP has any control over (i.e. whether your enemy fails to mention your organization on his website, or has inappropriately published information that is copyrighted by you, or how many pounds you've spent on the event, or so on.) If this guy is violating your copyright despite your telling him to stop you need to contact a lawyer. If he's duplicitously pocketing contributions meant for your nonprofit organization maybe you should turn him in at your country's tax office. These are significant legal issues--please don't just hope for an unrelated volunteer website to police them for you, but contact the appropriate legal authorities!
| 6:49 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The ultimate sanction that meta editors have against proven abusive editors is to remove their accounts.
When the accused editor has already left ODP, as in this case, the investigation rather tends to lose impetus.
Meta editors are volunteers too you know and mainly apply their efforts to what they perceive to be high priority activities. If this case hasn't been resolved before then, I know that it will regain speed if the editor concerned ever requests reinstatement.
I note that your website was listed in the category on the same day that you raised your abuse report; that's not a coincidence. Right now, it's returning SQL errors when I attempt to browse it from IE6 or Firefox. I suggest that you get it fixed fast before some editor notices :).
Had you thought of becoming an editor yourself? You clearly know a lot about the topic and will probably be able to maintain and grow it quite well.
| 2:58 am on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The Editor for the section of DMOZ is however, an ex sponsor of the event, whose websites solicit donations, by stating it is the only way to donate money to help the free weekly skates... (none of these donations come to our organisation). |
That sounds highly illegal to me! Have you been in touch with the police?
| 12:54 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes we have tried the police. They have an incident number, but because the sums of money involved are so small, they aren't bothered.. We're encouraging people come up to us asking if we got their donation, to complain to the police, but so far its small fair.. We could bring a private prosecution, but we don't have the funds for it, and can't get legal aid...
Is there another angle we can take. in that if this editor is inactive, I could volunteer to do it? as I said I'd put forward another 15 links or so...
Is there away to volunteer to edit a Section of DMOZ that has an inactive editor?
Enemy? I wouldn't go that far. I still volunteer and help out with the one skate this guy does organise, mainly because not many others do and its for beginners and its important to encourage them and help them as it can all seem a bit daunting...
As to links dissapearing... He's deliberately not putting the 2 main skating websites in London on the DMOZ. (simply because we know he's aware they exist, as he's sent legal writs to them both as one is a public forum where people have openly criticised his organising/teaching methods) - which incidentally we aren't interested at all in damaging. We think he provides a good service, and would happily see his business continue. just not his website potraid as the main port of call for our events...
| 12:56 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Status checked is:-
Its current status is new - This report has not yet been investigated. We aim to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. :)
| 12:58 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just checked and the links have been fixed... And the editorial free... Wow... all Ends well.... (so far...)
thanks for your time everyone..
| 1:43 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You can definitely still volunteer to edit that category, by the way. It doesn't matter if there's an inactive or even a current editor--it's absolutely fine for a category to have multiple editors. The only hitch would be if it's a very large or spammy category, which wouldn't be suitable for a new editor, but it sounds like this is a nice and small regional category that could benefit from your knowledge, so if you don't find the idea of sorting sites boring, I'd definitely encourage you to go for it. :-)
| 8:37 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There seems to be an echo in here :).
All of the other URLs that you mentioned in the abuse report are now awaiting review in the category. Some editor will pass by in time and process them.
| 2:35 pm on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
cool sounds good...
Can an editor make sub hierarchies? under their section?
application is being prepared as we speak...
| 2:41 pm on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, but it's best to discuss them first in the internal forums.
| 4:26 pm on Aug 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I wrote dmoz abuse report and they gave me a report ID number to reference.
When I go in an check using the ID number they gave me its states no such ID number.
Whats going on?
| 6:59 pm on Aug 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google my username to find my ODP profile and drop me a line so that I can check it out. Please include the report ID and its rough substance so that I can identify it.
| 5:36 pm on Aug 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hello? Anybody there?
| 10:40 am on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Any ideas How long it take Google to update their information from dmoz?
Google is still reporting old data...
[edited by: Yakitari at 10:40 am (utc) on Aug. 17, 2006]
| 5:50 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Historically the ODP tries to produce an updated RDF every 1-2 weeks, and Google tries to update its dump every month or so.
Historically, each process has appeared broken for several months at a time: the conversion to a Unicode RDF was one of the larger contributors to that.