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.

[allanp73]

Cornwall thank you.

Whether what I did in the past was wrong or right I really don't want to debate. Whether I was removed as editor was wrong or right I don't want to debate either.

However, my problem is that months after new businesses and past businesses and even future businesses are being affected. To make a analogy: What if you were fired from a job and your boss created a list with your past labelled as "wrongs". Then further researched and tried to find what you are doing now and added your current activities to this "wrongs" list and gave this list to anyone who was in a position to hire you. Further anyone who was associated with you was also added to this "wrongs" list and any future activity will be added as well. No one would hire you and no one would want to be associated with you.

Doesn't this seem a little extreme? This is what is happening to me.

[kctipton]

>>This is what is happening to me<<

Not so. Prove me wrong rather than just saying that UFOs exist and there were multiple gunmen responsible for shooting JFK.

[hutcheson]

allanp73, the experiences you describe are what is called "reputation." But you are exaggerating the effects. While ODP claims the right to remove all sites related to an abusing person or corporation, we do not necessarily invoke it in all cases, and I do not believe it has been invoked in this one.(*)

(*) I have to say this next bit carefully. You have the right to describe your actions here (and you did), but I do not have the right to describe them -- or even to comment on whether your description was accurate. That's the ODP confidentiality rules. So my remarks must not be (and must not be taken as) either a confirmation or a demurral of your description. But I can say that, historically, the actions of abuse for which we've invoked the "scorched earth" policy have always been MUCH more blatant than what you describe.

Another way of saying it is: we remove lots of editors, and have to clean up after them: but only in the most extreme cases do we altogether remove sites that otherwise would have warranted a listing. And the situation, as you described it, is far from the extreme.

[allanp73]

I appreciate your comments hutcheson.
I hope I haven't over-stepped and said too much. I really was not trying to damage DMOZ. If you read my previous posts you'll see that I like DMOZ and am not feeling negative about it at all. I just feel like this one editor had over-stepped their authority when they added these new sites to the ex-editor list.
All I want is to sort this situation out and be once again at harmony with DMOZ.
I know the rules and have been burned by not following them as an editor. I will not make this mistake again and have built web sites with these guidelines in mind.

If there is help/forgiveness out there, I would appreciate it.

[ikbenhet1]

i just want to repeat this line "The effect on Google is obvious". that from a ex editor. i don't undestand why you put this in public. bad bad editor.

[jimh009]

I'm a new editior to DMOZ in a very, very, very far down category (at the bottom, in fact) that gets few submissions and is not competitive in any sort of way. Since lots of posts seem to revolve around what editors do in their category (i.e. - how they edit sites and select sites for inclusion), I thought I would post the routine I go through when I receive new submissions.

1. Log in. Go to Editor Main. See that a new site is waiting to be reviewed.

2. Read editor notes.

3. Review the site and come up with my own description of the site if needed. Generally, a new description is needed. All too many sites that are submitted tend to try to market themselves in one or more ways.

4. Check for multiple links. For me, at least, this is sort of the crucial test for most sites. Sites that are already listed 10 or more times in the ODP get flunked at this stage (only had to do this to 2 sites). Until recently, I was under the impression that a site was only allowed 1 listing. As a result, I denied some sites because they were in a topical category and were now applying for regional listings (I edit a regional state sub-sub-sub category). When I discovered this error, I re-submitted these sites myself and put them back in.

It should be noted that i've never even heard of this "ex-editor" list that has been brought up previously. I suppose if I started digging through the enire guidelines I might find mention of it, or wading through the forum, but nothing like that has ever jumped out at me while editing. The editor dashboard is pretty straight forward, if somewhat confusing, at first.

Overall, DMOZ is a pretty neat project. While my category is tiny by all comparisons, it is kind of fun and rewarding in its own way to contribute to my one little section of the web. Prior to my taking over this tiny category, there was one dead site listed as well as most of the other sites having absolutely awful descriptions. I spent the time surfing these sites to find out what they were about and cleaned up the description to have them make more sense (it was obvious that whoever reviewed the sites previously knew nothing about the topic of the category).

And just to be upfront, my site is listed in this state regional sub-sub-sub category I edit. However, I got my site listed in this category 2 months before I ever became an editor. While I have no proof of this, I suspect having my site already listed in the category I applied for might have helped clear the way to editing - since I've since learned that most applicants seem to get denied for whatever reason.

Anyway, just though this little bit of information from a new ODP editor might be useful to someone. I suspect most ODP editors of small categories probably use a similar method when reviewing sites.

In the end, when reviewing sites, I and probably most editors do not look for reasons to deny a site. Instead, the reasons for denying a site are usually very obvious (page doesn't work, multiple linked, mirror sites, spam site, 100% affiliate links). In short, the obvious stuff. Few editors, I suspect, have time to go and check out WHOIS information, go thorugh various logs and in general play detective about a particular site.

Hope this helps.

Jim

[cornwall]

Jim

Few editors, I suspect, have time to go and check out WHOIS information, go thorugh various logs and in general play detective about a particular site.

Thank you for your helpful post. As you say, it is what you do, but I feel that it is representitive of what most DMOZ editors do.

And as you say, few have the time or inclination to play detective. So if someone does play detective they usually have a good (or indeed bad) reason for doing so. Which is the point I have been trying to make. ;)

[allanp73]

Hi Jim,

Actually, what you described is very similar to the way I used to edit. I hope that your experience will be better than the one I had.

[kingarthur]

I am also an ex-editor for DMOZ. My sites are also listed in this category. I have never been told by anyone at DMOZ why my editor status was removed and I never received any response from DMOZ regarding my many requests for why this happened.
I even went as far as finding meta editors like 'kctipton' to email explain my situation and try to find out what happened. To this day I have not received a single reply regarding this situation.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can find out what happened?

[choster]

When editors "time out," i.e. go four months without any editing activity and so have their logins deactivated, they receive this message:

Your login has been inactivated. Editor logins expire if an edit is not made in four consecutive months, even if you logged in during that time period. To request reinstatement of your login, please fill out the login reinstate form.

If you believe you are receiving this message in error, please contact [e-mail]

If a removed editor tries to log in, s/he receives this message:

Login Removed

Your login was deactivated for one or more of the following reasons:

-- Repeated failure to comply with the Open Directory community's editorial guidelines and policies.
-- Continuous poor and/or abusive editing.
-- Self-promotion and biased editing, including, but not limited to, cooling your own site, title or description manipulation, unfairly editing your owns sites or those with which you are affiliated.
-- Unfairly tampering with competitors' listings and submissions.
-- Inability to function well within the Open Directory community.
-- Uncivil and intentionally disruptive behavor.
-- Violation of Open Directory forum and email privacy.
-- Spamming the directory.

We do not disclose the specific details of login removals. However, the decision to deactivate your login was made by consensus of the meta community, and thoroughly reviewed by DMOZ staff to ensure that our decision was appropriate and warranted. Our decision to remove your login is final. Removed logins will not be reinstated, and you will not be granted a new login. We wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

The specific cause for removal is confidential within the Project as well as to the public and no meta-editor would reply to a request for explanation without endangering expulsion him or herself. Why give the offender ideas on how better to cover his/her tracks should s/he ever sneak in again under a different name?

It is possible that someone who times out will receive the wrong message. If you believe this is the case, please e-mail [e-mail] or contact a meta-editor [dmoz.org].

See also the ODP Help Central [dmoz.org] material on editor accounts.