>As a matter of fact it does really matter who did something. Because it is one thing if it is someone who has no personal interest in removing sites from the directory and a totally different story if the deleting was done by someone who runs a competing site (or is close to people who do). Don't you think?
I think not.
And it is a very good thing for you that I am right and you are wrong. Because -- you could never know what any of you claim you need to know to file an abuse report. You "presume" that a certain editor did it -- I have of course not looked at this case, but I can assure you that in my experience, in cases where assailants "presume" to accuse a particular editor, they are usually wrong: in fact, often no single editor did all the work.
And knowing motivations is even trickier. Oh, sure, based on the greed and malevolence in your own heart, you may assume that no other motive could ever cause someone else to act. Or you could suppose that the mere act of giving a person ODP editing permissions also endues him with godlike omniscience, thus eliminating the necessity of considering the possibility of a mistake. You could assert your own omniscience by declaring that anything you couldn't imagine couldn't happen (and so far as I can count, you're at 2.5 for 3 here.)
But even though I see the logs you don't see, and I have access to information you don't -- I don't dare impute that kind of omniscience to myself. I have to look at the facts -- the category and the guidelines and the logs -- first. And even then I can't always tell the motives, even when I know which editor did it.
If you can ever get past this arrogant "I know all the evil that lurks in the heart, and I know which heart it lurks in" delusion of omniscience yourself, and look at the actual facts, then someone can look and see if (1) an error occurred (in which case it needs to be fixed), and if so, (2) what action needs to be taken.
See? Don't start off by looking for perps. First let's see if anything wrong was even done. If so, we want to correct it, regardless of who did it. We want it not to happen again, regardless of why it was done. And if we can accomplish that, who will have anything to complain about?
Only people who carry personal grudges, that's all.
OK then, what's the evidence?
>a number of sites, which sell their own produced widgets has disappered not only from a category, but also do not show up in DMOZ at all anymore.
OK, that's something we can look at -- just name the category and one or two of the URLs. Explain how you know they produce their own products.
>All these sites used to show up in the top 15-20 for this category in Google directory; pf the abovementioned sites in the top 15-20 of Google directory now only 2 widgetselling sites have remained in the category in question.
DUH! If you take sites out of the directory, of COURSE they won't show up in the search. Just skip that little detail: it's highly offensive to people to explain things that are so mind-numbingly obvious -- and in any case it's irrelevant: what Google does is their own business, not ours. All that we do is put sites in the directory (and, of course, take them out.) Who searches the directory, and how, is not our problem.
>Of these 2 sites one is included twice in two separate categories and the other is included twice in the same category with 2 slightly different domains.
The former may or may not be a problem, depending on the categories involved. The latter IS a problem, but could well be treated separately. (That is, just report it in the "Quality Feedback" forum, as a simple canonicalization issue. The editor would probably consider whether the second listing should be deleted, as part of the cleanup.)
>(isn't this against DMOZ guidelines?).
Not necessarily. SUBMITTERS shouldn't submit to multiple categories (with certain exceptions which editors have often described.) It depends on the circumstances.
>as a further coincidence, the editor for a category 2 levels up (with no editors for the lower levels I suppose this should be the person responsible for editing)
.... look, just don't presume, OK? If there is a pattern of abuse by one editor, the logs will show whom it is, we're not dependent on your surmises. Just omit them.
>Well I would very much like to be positive, but how could I when I see so many sites with good positions in Google directory gone and the remaining 2 - comfortably listed twice, I somehow find it rather difficult to believe in some innocent explanation.
That'a a limitation of your imagination. Here are some hints, based on things that I have seen happen OFTEN: (1) An editor misunderstood the ODP guidelines and was looking for something specific on those sites, that shouldn't have been considered a requirement. (2) Affiliate doorway hypemeisters are in the business of deceiving people -- there are so many of them, and they try so many different kinds of deceptions, that some of them fool all of us. You may have been fooled by the other sites. (3) Based on internal discussions, the sites were legitimately moved from one category to another, and haven't yet shown up in the other category.
>And here comes another difficult one. How could one follow your advice and avoid accusing an editor when an abuse report under the circumstances, no matter how diplomatically worded, would be equivalent to a finger pointed at the person in question?!?
First of all, the fact is that a simple recital of facts may not point the finger at ANYONE! The facts indicate an appropriate action; the facts may indicate that multiple editors were involved; the facts may implicate some editor other than you suspected.
But the point of the exercise is not to feed a grudge, to execute vengeance, to assassinate a character (all of whom are served adequately by vague rants in public forums.)
The point is to correct an error in the directory (which is important to me, but may not matter a rotten fig to you) and to allow your site a bit of visibility to which you think it is entitled (which is important to you, but obviously not specifically important to me, since I'd be just as happy reviewing any of millions of other sites...)
And if there is an error, it can be corrected, and so much the better for the surfers (and, not that it matters to us, perhaps even the webmasters.)