DMOZ's ex-editors list

How does one get their sites removed from the list

[allanp73]

I was once an editor for DMOZ and was removed when I added one of my sites to the category I edited. It was a small category and I felt that my site was relevant. However, I admit I gave it a too good description and abused my editor power.
Later I found out from an editor friend that my sites not just the offending site were added to an ex-editor list. This list makes it very hard for other editors to add my sites to relavent categories. The removal of my sites from DMOZ effected the more than 200 people who are supported by my sites.
Several months later, I started a new business as a webmaster for a real estate web company. Being a fan of DMOZ I submitted the real estate sites to DMOZ. I made sure that the sites were relevant and of high content quality. 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. These sites only crime was they were linked to my site. I spoke to several lawyers about this. They told me that this constitutes a "restraint of trade", however to pursue the legal action would cost more money than I have to commit.
I really don't want to pursue legal action and tried several times to contact both the editor who added the sites to the list and the staff at DMOZ, but never received any response and I know the list hasn't been changed.
So what can I do? I make my living on the Internet and many others depend on me. DMOZ is in a situation where without its link it is almost impossible to achieve high ranking on Google.
If there is someone at DMOZ reading this, please help.
I would appreciate anyone's advice.

[mosley700]

>>All Test/ subcategories are for internal purposes. They don't require justification outside that context.<<

Doesn't that sound like something you'd hear from some fascist regime? The ODP promotes itself with an image of "openness".

hutcheson, try reading the ODP Social Contract:

>>We Don't Hide Our Official Editorial Policies<<

>>We will keep all official ODP editorial guidelines and policies open for public view at all times<<

>>We depend on the honesty and integrity of the volunteer editors<<

Nowhere in there did I find, "Editors will connive in a sneaky and underhanded manner to track ex-editors in a manner consistent with stalking".

My domains, that were never even developed into a site, are listed in there. That's the most anti-open, anti-freedom, big brother type thing I've seen on the Internet. And the Internet is all about FREEDOM.

[WindSun]

">>We Don't Hide Our Official Editorial Policies<<"

Obviously, keeping tabs on ex editors is an UNOFFICIAL policy....

[rafalk]

Being on the ex editors list is not an *editorial* policy - it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a site will be listed. More to the point, we have much more efficient ways of banning sites. Rather the ex-editor list is a meta policy. Many meta policies aren't open to the public, and with good reason.

Ex-editors can't be trusted. Period. They have a proven track record of abusing ODP policies and harming the directory for their personal gain. They have also shown a great willingness to try to do it again.

An ex editor complaining to his sites being on an ex editor list is akin of a felon on parole complaining about a monitoring bracelet. If you do the crime, you do the time.

[vmcknight]

Rafal, of course you mean "ex-editors who have been removed for abuse" can't be trusted. Editors who have timed out or resigned to pursue other interests are generally welcomed back any time they ask. :)

[allanp73]

rafalk,

I think you are being extreme. There are many ex-editors who don't even know why they were removed. Some may have abused their power but in the case of real crimes at least there is a trial and they are considered innocent before they are sentenced and there is a sentence. Sentence which is fitting of the crime and has the limited duration.
Where as, with DMOZ the "guilty" have no trial, no recourse, and are punished for life.

Added: Ex-editors are not criminals and should not be treated as such. They are volunteers who failed to meet the expectations placed on them.

[rafalk]

They are volunteers who failed to meet the expectations placed on them.

Spin it any way you want it - it doesn't change the basic facts. People aren't removed on a whim. We're talking about editors who quite often joined under false pretense in order to further their own agenda at the expense of the directory.

It absolutely kills me that the very same people who day after day complain about supposed editor corruption are taking up the case of the very abusers they're decrying.

What we do is very similar to the way casino cheats are dealt with in Nevada. The state keeps a black book containing all relevant information on people banned from the casinos. This information is used to keep these people from swindling the casinos again. It's the exact same principle at work here.

[Dynamoo]

Put it simply.. a new editor signs up and adds a bunch of sites.. so far, so good. But it turns out that most of the sites were owned by an ex-editor who was booted. Therefore you could speculate that the old editor and new one are the same.

You could argue that ALL editors should disclose ALL their sites in the same way, of course.

[Dumpy]

Let's see now....

DMOZ has had 54,753 editors and 4,753 editors are presently working. So, 50,000 EX-editors are on a secret enemies list, that METAs have deemed to be personas-no-grata.

That STINKS!

[kctipton]

Dumpy, you are really missing the point.

[WindSun]

"Spin it any way you want it.."

Rafalk, YOU can spin it any way you want to, but that does not make your blanket assumptions anywhere near correct. It does, though, reflect a common "us vs them" attitude among many of the senior editors in ODP.

In fact many (like me) were fired NOT for what they did editorially, but for what they said about ODP outside of ODP. Yet I am on that list - Basically for airing ODP's dirty laundry in public.

"Being on the ex editors list is not an *editorial* policy - it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a site will be listed..."

That is a blatant lie.

We have two main websites, one commercial and one and information only site. They are totally different. Yet because I am listed as an EX, our 2nd site is blacklisted as a "mirror" (and has been for over a year), even though they are totally different sites.
In fact, even though we do have one site listed, one of the Metas that posts here frequently took the time and effort to go into that listing and make it as generic as possible in the description - yet left all the other 200+ sites selling similar products in that category alone. That struck me as being so petty that it was pathetic.

"They have a proven track record of abusing ODP policies and harming the directory for their personal gain..."

Another outright lie. More of the "They vs Us" syndrome. I know many editors that quit, gave up, or were banned for reasons OTHER than your so-called abuse.

"Dumpy, you are really missing the point.."

And, what, exactly IS the point? I have seen that list, and it does NOT seperate editors based on why they are now "ex-editors". So it is basically a red flag for ANY site submitted, especially to a new editor.