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.

[crunchy cajun]

Geez, I don't know what the confusion is about, I understood the term the first time I heard it, without explanation, it seems really clear to me.

Fraternal twins, fraternal mirrors, they look different but for all intents and purposes are very similar in most other ways.

It isn't about who hosts a site, fraternal twins living in different homes are still fraternal twins, fraternal mirrors hosted by different hosts are still fraternal mirrors.

[WindSun]

"Fraternal twins, fraternal mirrors, they look different but for all intents and purposes are very similar in most other ways..."

And therein lies the problem.

"...but the written content is identical"

That is the kicker - the two sites are not even close. In fact they are different enough that we get questions from customers asking why our competitor links to our store.

Feel free to look at the two websites in question and see if you think they fall under that definition. The main is listed in my profile, there is a link from there to the other one.

[steveb]

Perhaps you could let this thread die an embarassed death. The term fraternal mirrors is in the publicly available dmoz guidelines. It also appears in the publicly available September 2001 newsletter (as anybody who would have bothered to search on Google could see immedaitely). The guidelines define the term precisely. Sheesh.

[steveb]

"The term 'fraternal mirror site' is apparently a new term at ODP."

"I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to see that there's gambling being done in here!"

'Your winnings, sir.'

[WindSun]

"...(as anybody who would have bothered to search on Google could see immedaitely)...."

Hmm.

"Searched the web for "fraternal mirror". Results 1 - 7 of 7. Search took 0.13 seconds "

I just did a Google search, and it came up with 7 returns on that phrase.
5 of them refer to twins (as in people), one of them refers to this thread. One is a French site.

Next shot.

[kctipton]

Searching google for fraternal mirror dmoz (no quotation marks) makes the search more relevant. It's there.

[sthenbelle]

Searched the web for fraternal mirror dmoz. Results 1 - 10 of about 39. Search took 0.13 seconds

Sometimes those quotes can mess up a search. ;)

[allanp73]

I just tried the search and only one of the links seemed to be useful however it was not working. Is the DMOZ server down?

[hutcheson]

>Is the DMOZ server down?

Yes. <cry />
Check out the Google cache.

[motsa]

I think you're exaggerating a little to say the two sites aren't even close, Windsun. They cover the same topic, though granted one is shopping oriented and the other is informational. Neither one is really designed to be standalone -- the informational one provides info and spec sheets about the products you sell and the sales site sells the products. You even point would-be purchasers to the informational site for additional product information. Together they make what would for anyone else be a single site.

I don't know why you felt the need to separate out your company information like that. The fact that it confuses even your customers should be an indication that maybe you should think about amalgamating all of your company information in one place.