Forum Moderators: open
I agree with you 100%. I don't believe this is the case here. Sites should always be listed on their own merit. But if you constantly spam the directory you will be tagged as such. Not saying that is what happened in this case - just saying it can happen.
I'm gonna have to go stand in the corner now. Bye.
I will await your sticky on the five cases of abuse. Make sure you send them and I'll check in the morning.
Yes, it is sad :(
I know Brett has always run a very professional forum here and I have great respect for him and those that participate. Don't let this thread turn you off from the value found in these forums.
so much passion, so much feeling.....heeheee.
Ok, someone around here get's it when I'm being a little tongue in cheek.
Didn't mean to go over anyone's head.
The opinions expressed by one individual are just that - the opinion of only one individual person.
Please be assured that they do not in any way reflect the opinion and feelings of any other person, nor of WebmasterWorld as a community.
>>The technical term
It's also called exercising restraint when you feel like kicking people in the nads. ;)
.....I nearly spit out my wine....:)
ROFL. Yeah, some topics around here people have strong opinions about. ;)
Yet here we are in the monthly DMOZ-bashing thread and the protests and calls for moderation from the same bunch are noticeable by their absence. In fact we even have a board moderator making one of the more ignorant posts that I have seen during the time that I have been a member here.
I prefer robust debate and people being forced to challenge their own beliefs and I was dismayed by the apologies and comments over in the other thread. But if we are going to do that then let us at least debate (which means providing evidence and arguments). The standard of debate and the low level of tolerance for sloppy or prejudiced thinking was one of the things that persuaded me to hang around originally.
But far too many posts over the last three months have been either unargued allegations or self-indulgent claptrap about why the world (or Google or DMOZ) has got it in for me...
You merely delude yourself about the power of the DMOZ. Unless your site is in a DMOZ category with unusually high PageRank and few sites listed, getting a link off of my amateur site's home page would have more effect on Google than the DMOZ. Quit whining about the DMOZ and get yourself some good inbound links from other sources.
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.
On the original topic of this thread.....
I still think you are confusing two issues
1. If you send for review a new URL, then there is nothing in the editors notes to link you to that site. Hells bells, it does not even have any editors notes as a new URL. It is plainly wrong to believe that all sites submitted to DMOZ are checked against the ex-editors list. There would have to be some "alarms" to make the reviewer dig deeper into the provenence of the site.
2. If you try to re-submit a site that has already been banned, then that will be in the editors notes, and will influence any new appraisal of your site.
If there is nothing to link you to the new submission, how do you think "they" are finding out it is "you", an ex-editor with a "record".
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).
That looks like a very genuine offer from a respected DMOZ editor (not one of your grouchy ones :) ) . If the original poster of the problem does not take it up, then as an outside observer, I would draw my own conclusions on the validity of the original complaint.
Perhaps allanp73 could say if he intends to take up beebware's offer, or if he does not, then why he does not want to.
Contractor, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are obviously lots of of people in the ODP with good intentions. Personally, given the potential for corruption I have to wonder if the idea of a *commercial* dorectory with volunteer editors is really great. The DMOZ model seems great for non-commercial sites. There obviously is a problem that when money is involved, some corrupt people will apply.
You raise a valid point. I believe that a commercial directory run by volunteers is viable. You have to accept the fact that there will be editor corruption whether it is a commercial free directory or not. If dmoz switched to a commercial free directory – what would stop site owners/editors from changing their content after their site is listed? This happens now and would happen if it was commercial free. I also believe that if the editors were paid and dmoz was turned into a “pay-for-submission” service, it wouldn’t make any difference. If you charged site owners they would growl all the louder that their site is being treated unfairly by corrupt editors being paid off by the “big guys”. Realistically if it was a pay-for-submission service who would you take care of the most? In your business or any business if one customer has repeatedly purchased 1000 widgets a week wouldn’t you treat them a little better than those who purchased “one”. This in itself would lead to corruption.
People need to accept the fact that there will always be corruption within the ODP just like any other organization or business, and there will always be listed sites that do not deserve to be listed. The only thing I can say is if you want to help then report abuse, and/or become an editor. It doesn’t do anyone any good to blatantly make broad-based statements if you are unwilling to help resolve this by taking the time to report what you see.
I found many times the people/webmasters that dislike dmoz the most are those that cannot get their sites listed for various reasons. It’s kind of like those that jump up and down and bash Googles algo because another site has taken their positions in the serps. If it doesn’t work for “them” it is either no good or is corrupt. If their site was holding the top two positions they would claim “this is the best algo ever”.
Marcia – You kill me!:)
Toolman - I never received a sticky
Allan admitted to have abused his own editor powers and was expelled for them. So far so bad (but quite noble of him to openly admit the fact). Also according to his own words, his wive and friends continue to violate the editing guidelines by relaying internal communication to him. This is somewhat understandable given the situation, but will lead to their eventual expulsion anyway.
The ODP maintains an early warning system to prevent repeat abuse by former editors, which among other things consists of keeping a list of their sites for future reference.
He claims that this list prevents his new sites from getting listed in the directory.
At the same time, at least three of his sites on that list are actually present in the directory (including one toplcal/regional double listing), together with another one that apparently escaped the attention of the people who had to clean up after him.
At least one of the remaining sites was rejected a while ago for not having enough useful content at that time. I didn't continue to check the rest, but I suspect that there might be several others with the same problem. They're all spanking new sites, after all.
Real estate sites are generally treated with an extra portion of suspicion, and for a reason. This is an extemely competitive area, which results in tons of affiliate and other doorway sites being submitted, in an attempt to deceive the editors and to carve out a few additional listings. That doesn't mean this is the case with Allans sites (as far as I can tell it's not), but it does mean that there's generally a huge backlog in the respective categories. It also means the the ODP had to establish extra guidelines about real estate sites, to make it easier for the editors to wade though the resulting mess.
The conclusion?
Add more useful content to your sites, and be patient. The requirements for real estate sites are higher than for most other types of sites, and getting them listed generally takes a while. To the best of my understanding (I don't edit real estate sites myself, so someone else may correct me), you seem to be on the right path with your sites, but some more work and time may be required.
Paranoia and conspiracy theories optional.
allanp73: msg #24:
>> I tried to be a good editor and edited fairly but the politics of DMOZ caught up to me. <<
You did admit at the start of the thread that you were removed for abusing your editor position. No politics were involved in that case, you were removed for self promotion [dmoz.org] plain and simple.
>> 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. <<
As previously mentioned, we do have a category labelled 'Metas/Sites Owned By Ex-editors' which is aimed at Meta editors and is only accessible to editors. When a site listed in that category is added elsewhere in the directory, all an editor will see is "This site already listed in ...Metas/Sites Owned...". There is NO red flag in this case and an editor should just be a little bit wary and confirm that the site isn't already listed in the ODP (as listing sites under multiple domains et al is the one of the main reasons of abuse: hence why an editor gets removed).
We _do_ have a red flag system, but this is only used on sites that have really spammed the ODP and attempted to abuse it (see the ODP URL note [dmoz.org] feature). We also have a 'green note' feature for the really good sites...
toolman: msg26:
(about abuse in the ODP) >> It's an accepted fact. <<
Yep, it is. Same with any organisation of significant size. Take a look at your local newspaper. Odds are, they'll be an article about somebody stealing from their employer. It doesn't mean that all their employees are thieves. But whenever it is noticed that somebody _is_ "taking advantage" of their position, then you get rid of them as soon as you can. Of course, sometimes these things take a while to notice (a good example is that of the classic "stationary theft" - it might not be noticed that an employer is walking of with staplers until a stocktake of that particular department takes place. And when it does, you find out why X has been happening and then you remove the cause of the problem). I think the phrase that comes to mind has something to do with bad apples and apple carts.
If you do feel an editor is abusing their position in the ODP, please don't just moan "it takes place", contact an editor with examples (I'm willing to look into any allegations of abuse if you want). It _will_ then be dealt with (if there is abuse taking place). We have even removed senior editors (metas) for abusing the directory before - so don't think that any editor is above reproach.
Marcia, msg38:
>> The opinions expressed by one individual are just that - the opinion of only one individual person. <<
Echoed here loud and clear :) Likewise, yep, I am an editor at the ODP but I'm not here to represent them in any official capacity (if I was, I'd like some money for it :) ).
cornwall, msg47:
>> It is plainly wrong to believe that all sites submitted to DMOZ are checked against the ex-editors list <<
Agreed, most of the time when I'm editing I don't even pull up the "complete site details" until I'm going to _add_ the site. I look at the submitted title+description in the "unreviewed overview", check the site out: and then either rejected it on its own merit or go in and add the site. Obviously, if the site details page takes ages to load because it's crammed full of editor notes (because it's a known past abuser for example) then I might take a second look at the site, but most of the time it's a "straight add". I believe my method of working doesn't vary much from other editors :)
cornwall, msg 48:
Yep, allanp73 has sent me a private message/sticky mail regarding this issue. However, since I'm UK based, I'm unable to call the toll-free telephone number he so gratefully offered. I'm sticky-mailed him back asking for his details (such as his old editor name etc). Of course, that was just 10 minutes ago, so it's still a little early to expect a reply :)
The Contractor, msg 49:
I've actually worked for a commercial web directory (the "old" UKPlus when it was owned by the DMG). While I still can't say too much, I can agree with your statements.
Bird, msg 50:
I think you may have summed it up quite nicely :)
Actually, I did take beebware up on his offer.
As for the problem with DMOZ, they not only added sites which were previous submitted but they added sites which never submitted to this list. Sites which were own by other people even.
The problem is that these new sites are not being given a fair chance. The other ones as well that weren't reviewed but were submitted were given a fair chance. From my weblogs I can see editors coming from the ex-editors page. Then months pass and the submitted sites don't get looked at or reviewed. Obviously the editors are afraid.
If every site you were involved with was treated this way how would you feel. I am not only black listed for my past but my future. This is the problem. This is why it constitues legally a "restrain of trade".
Dmoz is an important site. It powers 8000 other sites. The effect on Google is obvious the top ranked sites good or bad generally have a link from it.
Understand I am not just some guy whining for no reason. What has happened is wrong and should be corrected.
In response to Beebware:
>>You did admit at the start of the thread that you were removed for abusing your editor position. No politics were involved in that case, you were removed for self promotion plain and simple. <<
Actually, re-read my other posts. I mentioned that there was other editor (probably a competitor) who was changing my descriptions. This peeved me and lead to my "abuse".
In fact, it'd be best if you contacted a meta-editor who would then be able to investigate, as we're the people who actually would deal with most of this, and there are features that assist us in handling such stuff. These can be found by looking for someone whose name has "editall catmv meta" beside it on the meta-editor report [dmoz.org]. Alternatively, you may contact DMOZ staff at staff@dmoz.org .
Actually, I did take beebware up on his offer.
So, we can all wait for beebware's answer. I think it was a very generous offer he made to look into the matter.
This thread obviously touched many raw nerves, it grew quickly in length. I would guess that a large part of the original problem stems from the fact that ODP does not have a reasonably open channel for people like Allan to put their problems to.
Resource Zone does not handle such "beefs", and there is a desire to not answer/sweep under the carpet such problems by DMOZ. Perhaps if there was some form of safety valve for people like Allan to vent their steam, then not such a head of steam would build up.
And, yes, I do not know the full facts. And, yes, I don't like spammers ;)
I would guess that a large part of the original problem stems from the fact that ODP does not have a reasonably open channel for people like Allan to put their problems to.
I would argue that the problem is with people who want their cake and eat it too. People complain all the time how the ODP is full of corrupt editors, etc, etc. However the second one of these editors is removed, gushing sympathy starts pouring in at these "victims" of the "all-powerful meta cabal." It's either one or the other - you can't have it both ways.
I would argue that the problem is with people who want their cake and eat it too. People complain all the time how the ODP is full of corrupt editors, etc, etc. However the second one of these editors is removed, gushing sympathy starts pouring in at these "victims" of the "all-powerful meta cabal." It's either one or the other - you can't have it both ways.
Respectfully, as you quote from my post, if you take the trouble to read my posts, I do not believe I have offered either "gushing sympathy" nor have I mentioned an "all-powerful meta cabal."
It is a particular problem that the ODP have that
It's either one or the otherMany editors are indeed removed quite correctly, but the very fact that you have removed them, in itself, does not mean that the decision was in any one case either right or wrong.
The problem is that you do not appear to have a forum/line of communication for people like Allan to voice their beef (whether the beef is right or wrong, is, as I have said, not mine to judge)
I see no reason why you cannot offer that form of communication - other than on the the (perhaps) understandable grounds that you do not have the resources/inclination.
Life is never either black or white, there are a lot of shades of grey. You lose credibility if you insist that "it's either one or the other"
I hope this thread has burned out now. A list is just that, a list. If you wish you had no sites on it, don't abuse.
Just to clarify, from your profile, I assume you are a DMOZ meta of the same name as your email address?
Wouldn't like to feel I was going off at a tangent here!
Just to clarify, from your profile, I assume you are a DMOZ meta of the same name as your email address?
Yes. I'm meta editor apeuro [dmoz.org]. BTW, I was speaking generally in my last post. It wasn't intended to be directed at you.
