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]

Ok, I've been asleep the last 12 hours, so let me just catch up with a few things :)

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 :)

[allanp73]

In response to Cornwall:

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".

[rafalk]

Let me get this straight, you're blaming another abuser for your own abuse?!

[yklaw]

>> 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. <<

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 [e-mail] .

[cornwall]

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 ;)

[rafalk]

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.

[cornwall]

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 other

Many 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"

[kctipton]

Hello yklaw :)

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.

[cornwall]

rafalk

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!

[rafalk]

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.