DMOZ abuse report system

Open Directory editors are testing a abuse reporting system

[perkoch]

The DMOZ team is testing a new facility that lets webmasters report editors and submitters that abuse the system.

According to a press release we have received "All reports will be investigated expeditiously and in
complete confidence. If abuse is found we will rectify it. Users will be able to submit reports anonymously should they choose, whereas we encourage them to supply an e-mail address, which will be used in case further information will be needed in order to successfully complete the abuse investigation."

There is a new FAQ at http://inelegant.org/report-abuse/faq.html .

It is not hosted on the dmoz.org servers. However, it does have the [url=http://****.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=abuse&Number=29144&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1] "full blessing and support of the ODP staff".[/url]

[Tor]

Excellent find Per! It was about time for this to go live. This new feature will, in my opinion, improve the quality of the ODP directory over time. It will be far more "dangerous" for unetichal editors to continue with their spamming activities. :)

[ettore]

That is, we do listen to useful suggestions which come both from external and internal Forums. We just take our time to discuss, test, and agree on what will actually improve the quality of the directory. :)

[cornwall]

It has been (comparatively) easy to report abuse in the past - email a meta with a full report, and provided you have made a decent case the abusive one will get removed.

(there is one who hangs on like teflon in spite of my reports over the years, but there you go. To be fair the majority do go)

The only point I would make with this move, is that those of us making reports may wish to remain nameless (as I do). The form asks for your email address. Looks as though I will have to activate that old Hotmail account to use the service.

[kctipton]

Email address not _required_ just requested. Of course any working address will do - we don't have to know who you are, but we may want to ask you for more details if you didn't provide quite enough. Anon. reports are just fine.

[Laisha]

Anon. reports are just fine.

Are we to infer, then, that IP addresses will not be logged?

And to whom does the inelegant domain belong?

[kctipton]

Don't try to infer anything other than what's stated: the detail of an email address isn't required. I can imagine _wanting_ to know IPs only _after_ receiving a spate of mischievous/frivolous reports, but it's too early to know if that'll happen. People, if they're so worried about being truly anonymous, can use one of the many services that rfgdxm seems to use, or they can submit reports the old-fashioned way, through editor feedback.

Domain ownership? Try betterwhois dot com - their records have the data. Examining the details might even reveal to you which meta owns it.

[Laisha]

Examining the details might even reveal to you which meta owns it.

Ah...that answers my question. I wanted to know if AOL/DMOZ owned it or if it was a privately-owned domain.

Many people -- and I include myself, were I inclined to use a form -- would likely hesitate to send information to a third party, no matter who that third party is.

[edited for clarity.]

[ettore]

>> would likely hesitate to send information to a third party

The old-fashioned email-a-meta-via-ODP-feedback way, which thousands of people have used until now, still works. Just notice that -- as you know -- you are sending information to a third party when using editor feedback :)

[orlady]

... you are sending information to a third party when using editor feedback...

Also, with this system there will be a log of the report that will remain available to the meta community, so (unlike editor feedback) your abuse report can't get lost (or worse) in a meta's inbox.

[enarra]

... (or worse) in staff's inbox. Can you imagine the amount of e-mail they get? Much better to contact a third party in the form of a meta.