| 9:33 pm on Oct 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Don't ever rely on what a lawyer tells you about the Internet :)
You can sue AOL - they don't care.
Anyway - there are two ways around this - the banging your head way - and my way.
You can continue to do what you are doing OR
get a new ip, email, and register sites under a company name, diiferent address and telephone number.
This won't help with your old sites, but it will with your new - and you can never be sure that if you do not do this - that they aren't going to penalize you.
Also, your ideas about google and dmoz are misplaced. You do not need to be in the DMOZ for a good ranking. It just so happens that many good sites are in the dmoz and google happens to show good sites in their rankings. the two aren't cause and effect.
| 9:57 pm on Oct 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I can't just abandon the sites. There is more than just me affected. I can ask the other companies to give up there sites as well. There are just too many people affected and too much money involved.
As for the importance of DMOZ. Look at the top sites on Google, the DMOZ link is extremely important. A DMOZ link is worth 100 other links. I have studied this for over a year and everytime I do the math it works out the same the DMOZ link is essential to high ranking on DMOZ.
ADDED: Actually, when one of the sites was removed from DMOZ it went from top 5 to being out of the top 200 after Google updated the link removal. The traffic to that site almost stopped and costed my business thousands.
[edited by: allanp73 at 10:02 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2002]
| 10:01 pm on Oct 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh heck I have high-ranking sites that are not in ODP. It can be a boost (or not much of a boost) depending on a variety of factors, but it's hardly life and death....
| 10:38 pm on Oct 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|One editor saw that I was the register of some of the sites and immediately added these new sites to my ex-editor page. They even added sites to the list which I hadn't registered or even submitted to DMOZ |
A meta may prove me wrong, but as far as I am aware it is unlikely that an editor would normally check a "routine" submission against an ex-editors list, unless the reviewer had some reason to do so.
Assuming that your new submission was indeed a new site, not just a clone of an earlier one, reviewers normally have better things to do than check against "whois" to see who the registrant is. They would then have to check against the "Ex-editors" list and link you with a particular ex-editor....not an easy thing to do unless its a specialist topic and the present editor knows who you are (perhaps from the spat that resulted in your being dismissed the service)
Memories are long in DMOZ, but normally ex-editors are not discriminated against...unless there is some personal needle. If you honestly believe that you are being unjustly kept out of DMOZ with new sites, then file an abuse report with full chapter and verse...but if you know that the discrimination is justified, then avoid making more enemines within the gilded portals of DMOZ by filing a complaint that will get nowhere.
| 10:44 pm on Oct 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
We have 12 domains of which 10 are NOT listed in DMOZ. ALL 12 rank well with Google. I think you're putting too much value on the DMOZ listing. Take a few days and think about this before you do anything legal in nature. I believe Google cares more about content than a link within DMOZ. Just my opinion.
| 10:49 pm on Oct 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I know for a fact that people put too much emphasis og dmoz.
Unless you are in:
or something like that - the boost it gives you is generally small.
google updates once a month and sites go up and down for a variety of reasons.
the #1 reason that you see sites from the dmoz in top listings is for the reason I already mentioned:
Google picks good sites and in general - good sites are in the dmoz.
This will not persuade people that swear that their yahoo and dmoz listings help them immensly in google.
I have hundreds of sites in and out of dmoz. Do I like dmoz? Sure. Do I submit to dmoz? Sure. Would it bother me tomorrow if dmoz went down the tubes? Not really - it would all average out.
| 10:54 pm on Oct 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The original site was in a completely different industry. The new site that I submitted was part of real estate network and one the site's in the network was linked to the site which was on the ex-editor list.
Dmoz editors are especially paranoid about real estate related sites. I guess the editor did a whois look up and saw that the real estate I submitted and the original site were owned by an ex-editor. Then went even further and quickly added all the sites that were linked in the network to the list.
I saw all of this because my wife was an editor as well.
I did report the abuse but got no results. I know that the list is still there because I've seen it in my web logs and strangely was able to view the list.
I really need someone at DMOZ to take notice and help out. I obeyed all the submission guidelines. This is really hitting hard many people. It does not seem fair that one editor can effectively decide to destroy mine and others businesses.
NOTE: This has been going on for several months now. And I've tried many tries to try to get help from DMOZ.
| 11:34 pm on Oct 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
(The contents of URL notes are confidential. Please do not ask friends or family members who are editors to act in contravention of [dmoz.org...] ).
While editors are advised to read internal editor notes [dmoz.org] on urls prior to listing, a note solely indicating "Owned by ex-editor someguy" does not enjoin an editor to deny it a listing permanently and universally.
A note "Owned by ex-editor and persistent deeplink spammer someguy" still wouldn't ban the site, and an "Owned by ex-editor someguy-- check for cloaked affiliate links" note is similarly a directive to check-- not to delete automatically. Nothing in the Site Selection Criteria [dmoz.org] obliges an editor to bar such a listing; rather, the editor is more expected to look at the site to confirm the notes and not take them at face value.
Explicit flagging and banning of sites-- "Owned by ex-editor someguy's company, which installs redirects to child pornography as soon as url is published in Google. DO NOT ADD" in a big red box and boldface type -- is relatively rare compared against the millions of urls already in the directory and the hundreds of thousands waiting for review. And the banned sites are typically from known spammers [dmoz.org], or from domain hijackers, cloaked resellers, or others whose content cannot be trusted to resemble in a week what it appears to be at the point of editorial review.
So again, as others in this thread have said for various reasons, don't lose too much sleep regarding those sites.
| 12:13 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The orginal ex-editor list had only two sites. Now the list has over twenty sites on it. As a result the sites have not been added to DMOZ despite the fact they are of high quality. I talking hundreds of pages of useful content. The sites were submitted over 4 months ago. From my web logs I can see how the editors view the sites. They aren't even giving them a chance.
DMOZ powers not just Google but over 8000 other search engines and directories. It is a big deal!
How would you feel if your site was linked to mine and suddenly was added to this list and prevented from being added to DMOZ?
My reputation and the reputations of others is affected. My business and the businesses of others is affected.
It is a big deal!
| 1:29 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I am aware that some sites are listed under the editor only category of "Sites Owned by Ex-Editors". And, looking at a random selection of the sites listed - some are listed elsewhere in the directory and some just have the note "Owned by ex-editor XYZ". I only came across a couple that were 'blackmarked' and those had a whole heap of editor-notes attached with remarks similar to "Affiliate site - submitted to inapproriate category", "Not suitable for this section. No original content" etc etc: the sort of note you would expect to find any _any_ persistant spammer of the ODP.
However, there is NO mention either in the editor guidelines, nor in the internal editor forums (that I'm aware of: but obviously I haven't read all 12k odd threads in various languages :) ) that say "Do not list ex-editor sites".
I believe the _only reason we do_ keep an occasional list is because ex-editors are known to reapply under different editor names, and the list of sites allows an additional warning system for the meta editors (in fact, the list is maintained under a section labeled 'Meta').
>> They told me that this constitutes a "restraint of trade" <<
I'd love to know how they work this out. I take it you showed them the 'Editoral discreation' section on [dmoz.org...] .Just remember, it is usually in a lawyers best interest to get you to take a third party to court: if you win, they get their fee. If you lose (even if you haven't got a case) they get their fee. Whenever I've needed to consider taking legal action, I usually ask them "well, if you think I've got a case - are you willing to work on a no win, no fee basis": if they aren't, well, you've got to ask yourself "why".
If you do truely believe that you are being discriminated against for this reason, please feel free to contact me (include the sites URLs and your ex-editor alias). I promise to give your site(s) a fair review and if I believe that you have been unjustly treated, then I'll put the sites in the queue for the appropriate category with a suitable note. If, however, they were valid deletes (say, for example, you had a site which was just an affiliate of X Y or Z), then would you mind if I posted the reasons here so that people know the real reason? That's my offer - whether you take it or not is up to you... (my ODP editor name is the same as on this board btw).
| 1:34 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to WebmasterWorld, Beebware. :)
| 1:42 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
[edited by: NFFC at 5:38 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]
[edit reason] By popular demand [/edit]
| 1:43 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This thread is in danger of mixing the general with the particular.
There is no general rule about ex-editor sites, and, so far as most editors are concerned, any note they see is 'site specific' not 'editor specific'.
Unless the editor recognised the submitter name or some id on the site, there'd be no way of linking any new submission with the ex-editor. And you can submit anonymously. And you don't have to spread your editor name over your sites.
I know nothing of the particular case, of course, but it is likely that the site concerned in the removal has now been tagged, and may have been (initially) moved; in most cases, that doesn't mean it'll never be listed again - unless one problem was cloning or mirror sites. Or (unlikely) deeplinks.
I suspect your 'inside source' has misled you ... or you have not told the whole story.
| 2:33 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Nice to see you here beebware - I used your software before. Back in the day when SEs would index anyone's dmoz index - I had 1,000s of pages.
That wasn't my intent, but it was cool....
| 2:37 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm going to exercise my constitutional right to free speech. If a dmoz editor doesn't like it, too bad.
I know for a fact that "some" of these meta editors are <snipped>
I've also encountered some good eggs.
What bothers me most of all is their silence.
Shame on you!
[edited by: NFFC at 5:39 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]
[edit reason] We don't do rudeness [/edit]
| 2:48 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|DMOZ is corrupt from the ground up. Like it's FINALLY been pointed out here...it's not that important to be listed in there. |
That's an awful broad brush you're using there. I'm glad I don't use such words about forums or moderators of such. I think that is a terrible statement to be made. I'm very disappointed that you feel that way after the countless hours many editors spend trying to make a decent directory.
| 2:53 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>I'm very disappointed that you feel that way after the countless hours many editors spend trying to make a decent directory.
Sorry. It would be no loss to me to see DMOZ sink tomorrow. It's as corrupt in there as anything I've ever seen. Too bad for the good people but facts is facts.
| 2:59 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You're not making any sense to me. This thread is was started by an editor that promoted his own sites over the average submitter. He was caught and removed. This is what "should" happen. But now it's twisted that this is wrong and corrupt. Wow, it's very hard for me to see your reasoning :(
For the 5-months I have been editing I have seen quite a few editors get tossed for this - does that show corruption?
[Edited] I just want to state that it's not that I don't believe there are corrupt editors. I do know this is and to my knowledge always has been a top priority to weed them out.
[edited by: The_Contractor at 3:19 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]
| 3:03 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
abused my editor power.
And you are blaming who for the consequences?
not just the offending site were added to an ex-editor list.
There's no such thing as an "offending site" in this context. There's only an "offending editor". And it is clearly in the interest of the directory and all honest submitters and editors to keep track of all sites affiliated with such an editor.
Several people have already mentioned that the removal of an editor doesn't automatically mean the removal of their site(s). If I'm not mistaken, then this also hasn't been the case with yours. In fact, I see three individual listings in the directory at this time, including a fraternal mirror (same thing with a different layout) under the *.net domain that should actually get removed.
| 3:11 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ is corrupt from the ground up.
v. mod·er·at·ed, mod·er·at·ing, mod·er·ates (md-rt)
- To lessen the violence, severity, or extremeness of.
- To preside over: She was chosen to moderate the convention.
| 3:29 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
bird, he isn't the moderator of *this* forum. ;)
| 3:32 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Alan, you have ceaselessly spammed the directory with deeplinks, please understand your sites will not be listed.
| 3:34 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I would to be able to tell my whole story. But it would take too much time. I love hearing others comments about my situation.
To explain the original abuse more clearly what I did was added my own site. The original description I gave my site was what I gave to any site that I added to the category. However, later another editor changed my description. They modified it so it didn't really accurately describe the site. I was peeved and changed the description to make sense using what they wrote. Later another editor said that I was making the description too geared towards marketing. This was possibly the case I probably should just left the other editor crappy description. I over reacted and was removed.
I thought it was awfully strange the another editor had taken so much interest in the small category that I edited. Especially, since it didn't have an editor for the longest time before I came along. It was even more strange that so after I was removed another editor was editing the category.
I tried to be a good editor and edited fairly but the politics of DMOZ caught up to me.
As for DMOZ not looking at the ex-editor list, I know they do. When a new site is flagged this way it is like a big red flag. Editors are afraid to touch something that could lead to them getting removed as well.
There are many good editors and actually I have a high opinion of DMOZ, however, there many who ruin and corrupt the whole system.
| 3:34 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I get really tired of all the accusations. Some of us bust our butts to make a quality contribution. I try to take care of my little corner of the world in a reasonable and efficient manner. The world isn't perfect. Deal with it. And I wish the moderator would keep closer tabs on the commentary hereabouts. :(
| 3:39 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>>For the 5-months I have been editing I have seen quite a few editors get tossed for this - does that show corruption?
The reason you see it all the time is because it's such a problem. What about the others that are under the radar. I know of at least 5 "situations" going in DMOZ right now. Everybody here can say that. It's an accepted fact. I believe it's from the bottom to the top like that.
The original poster said he was concerned about his reputation...thats what I got from him. I dont think it's a concern from a corrupt org like DMOZ. Thats what I think.
| 3:40 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
rafalk - My name is Allan. I hope you are not talking about me. Because never submitted deep links to DMOZ.
| 3:55 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|The reason you see it all the time is because it's such a problem. What about the others that are under the radar. I know of at least 5 "situations" going in DMOZ right now. Everybody here can say that. |
You seem to make these broad accusations. What if I stated that about these forums or its moderators. I am not a dmoz troll as referred to in one of your previous posts and I consider myself more professional than to call people names that go against my personal beliefs - no matter what it is. I was visiting and supporting(donations) these forums before ever becoming an editor. So please, no broad based accusations.
Why don't you sticky me about these 5 cases. And since you seem to know that everyone else on this forum has 5 cases - sticky me those also. I will make sure they get to the proper Meta.
| 3:56 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Let's clarify the point of this thread. This thread is about shooting down a submission for reasons apart from it's merit.
This is a shameful act and this behavior should rightfully be condemned.
How dare these people edit without considering the consequences of their actions.
Shame on them! Shame on them!
[edited by: NFFC at 5:41 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]
[edit reason] Thoughtless comment removed [/edit]
| 4:03 am on Oct 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I love these editor threads....so much passion, so much feeling.....heeheee.
I'm gonna have to go stand in the corner now. Bye. :)
| This 153 message thread spans 6 pages: 153 (  2 3 4 5 6 ) > > |