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.

[beebware]

I am aware that some sites are listed under the editor only category of "Sites Owned by Ex-Editors". And, looking at a random selection of the sites listed - some are listed elsewhere in the directory and some just have the note "Owned by ex-editor XYZ". I only came across a couple that were 'blackmarked' and those had a whole heap of editor-notes attached with remarks similar to "Affiliate site - submitted to inapproriate category", "Not suitable for this section. No original content" etc etc: the sort of note you would expect to find any _any_ persistant spammer of the ODP.

However, there is NO mention either in the editor guidelines, nor in the internal editor forums (that I'm aware of: but obviously I haven't read all 12k odd threads in various languages :) ) that say "Do not list ex-editor sites".

I believe the _only reason we do_ keep an occasional list is because ex-editors are known to reapply under different editor names, and the list of sites allows an additional warning system for the meta editors (in fact, the list is maintained under a section labeled 'Meta').

>> They told me that this constitutes a "restraint of trade" <<

I'd love to know how they work this out. I take it you showed them the 'Editoral discreation' section on [dmoz.org...] .Just remember, it is usually in a lawyers best interest to get you to take a third party to court: if you win, they get their fee. If you lose (even if you haven't got a case) they get their fee. Whenever I've needed to consider taking legal action, I usually ask them "well, if you think I've got a case - are you willing to work on a no win, no fee basis": if they aren't, well, you've got to ask yourself "why".

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).

[Beachboy]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld, Beebware. :)

[toolman]

<snipped>

[edited by: NFFC at 5:38 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]
[edit reason] By popular demand [/edit]

[Quadrille]

This thread is in danger of mixing the general with the particular.

There is no general rule about ex-editor sites, and, so far as most editors are concerned, any note they see is 'site specific' not 'editor specific'.

Unless the editor recognised the submitter name or some id on the site, there'd be no way of linking any new submission with the ex-editor. And you can submit anonymously. And you don't have to spread your editor name over your sites.

I know nothing of the particular case, of course, but it is likely that the site concerned in the removal has now been tagged, and may have been (initially) moved; in most cases, that doesn't mean it'll never be listed again - unless one problem was cloning or mirror sites. Or (unlikely) deeplinks.

I suspect your 'inside source' has misled you ... or you have not told the whole story.

[Chris_R]

Nice to see you here beebware - I used your software before. Back in the day when SEs would index anyone's dmoz index - I had 1,000s of pages.

That wasn't my intent, but it was cool....

[martinibuster]

I'm going to exercise my constitutional right to free speech. If a dmoz editor doesn't like it, too bad.

I know for a fact that "some" of these meta editors are <snipped>
I've also encountered some good eggs.

What bothers me most of all is their silence.

Shame on you!

[edited by: NFFC at 5:39 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]
[edit reason] We don't do rudeness [/edit]

[The Contractor]

Toolman,

DMOZ is corrupt from the ground up. Like it's FINALLY been pointed out here...it's not that important to be listed in there.

That's an awful broad brush you're using there. I'm glad I don't use such words about forums or moderators of such. I think that is a terrible statement to be made. I'm very disappointed that you feel that way after the countless hours many editors spend trying to make a decent directory.

My 2-Cents

[toolman]

>>I'm very disappointed that you feel that way after the countless hours many editors spend trying to make a decent directory.

Sorry. It would be no loss to me to see DMOZ sink tomorrow. It's as corrupt in there as anything I've ever seen. Too bad for the good people but facts is facts.

[The Contractor]

You're not making any sense to me. This thread is was started by an editor that promoted his own sites over the average submitter. He was caught and removed. This is what "should" happen. But now it's twisted that this is wrong and corrupt. Wow, it's very hard for me to see your reasoning :(

For the 5-months I have been editing I have seen quite a few editors get tossed for this - does that show corruption?

[Edited] I just want to state that it's not that I don't believe there are corrupt editors. I do know this is and to my knowledge always has been a top priority to weed them out.

[edited by: The_Contractor at 3:19 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]

[bird]

abused my editor power.

And you are blaming who for the consequences?

not just the offending site were added to an ex-editor list.

There's no such thing as an "offending site" in this context. There's only an "offending editor". And it is clearly in the interest of the directory and all honest submitters and editors to keep track of all sites affiliated with such an editor.

Several people have already mentioned that the removal of an editor doesn't automatically mean the removal of their site(s). If I'm not mistaken, then this also hasn't been the case with yours. In fact, I see three individual listings in the directory at this time, including a fraternal mirror (same thing with a different layout) under the *.net domain that should actually get removed.