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.

[mosley700]

Can somebody (A.P. Euro, kctipton, anybody?) let me know how this ex-editors list works? Are the sites I admin on this list? ( I don't own them - do a whois.)

[hutcheson]

Basically, the editors who have to deal with abusively submitted and/or edited sites keep track of whatever they think might help them catch or prevent the same sort of abuse recurring. That's all.

No, you can't get a list of the sites that are tracked: there are many different ways of keeping such records, and each editor can even create his own private list. Some of them end up in Test subcategories, others don't.

If a site is really listable, according to the guidelines, you can 1) submit it and 2) ask about its status in the ODP editors' own forum.
If it's not listable according to the guidelines, you will have deserved the rotten vegetables heaved at you. If it is listable, and you haven't done anything REALLY vicious (over, say, 100 submittals is probably getting pretty close to really vicious) then you can generally get a response.

If you've done something really vicious, then we'll probably just stand by and cheer when you get run over by your karma. (The internet didn't repeal the basic principles of social behavior.)

[allanp73]

Hi Hutchinson,

I agree with your comments. In the end I was able to get help with my problem from one of the meta-editors. Some of the sites were eventually added to DMOZ. I only submitted the sites once and the meta-editor commented that it would have been fine to submit more than that so I submitted some of them again. These others are still waiting to be added. The sites are worthy of being added, but the categories where they were submitted some lack editors and others have editors who are slow about reviewing the sites. I even addressed this issue on the DMOZ forum but it hasn't speed up the process. I believe that many of the editors are good people and have appreciated the help I was given. Still sometimes I wish there was a way to speed up the process. 3-6 months is just too long wait for sites which are of high caliber.

[kctipton]

>>sites which are of high caliber<<

If you say so...

[allanp73]

Hi kctipton,

I figure when a site offers over 100 pages of unique general real estate information including mortgage information, buyers and sellers tips, and a glossary plus over 40 pages on the communities the site serves, telling visitors the areas where or where not to buy; then it qualifies as a site of high caliber. If this much content does not warrant this distinction then 80% of the sites listed on DMOZ shouldn't be listed.

[mosley700]

kctipton said:
"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."

My sites are on that list, but I never spammed. I don't even resubmit sites after they've been submitted once.
The problem with that list is this:
"If you wish you had no sites on it, don't abuse."
It leads other editors to believe that sites on that list are banned for spamming. So they won't touch them, much less list them.

And it's secretive, and obsessive. Not in the "open" spirit at all.
...
BTW, you aren't coming by anymore? ;)

[motsa]

It leads other editors to believe that sites on that list are banned for spamming.

Whoever said that spamming was the only abuse an (ex)editor could do?

So they won't touch them, much less list them.

You can't really speak for what other editors might think or do. It's just a list and the presence of a URL in that list doesn't mean it can't/won't be listed if it is in fact a listable site.

[allanp73]

I have a mixed feelings about the list. I feel that it creates a negative impression of past editors. I also believe it has slowed the process of having sites listed. However, I have managed to get sites listed on DMOZ even after they were added to the ex-editor list.
I believe this list should expire instead of being a permenant black mark.

[mosley700]

>>You can't really speak for what other editors might think or do. It's just a list and the presence of a URL in that list doesn't mean it can't/won't be listed if it is in fact a listable site.<<

I can speak for what editors might think or feel. I have spoken to many, and that's exactly how they feel. Furthermore, that's the intended affect.

[Laisha]

You can't really speak for what other editors might think or do. It's just a list and the presence of a URL in that list doesn't mean it can't/won't be listed if it is in fact a listable site.

I'm sure you are aware that there are indeed many editors who will not touch a site for exactly that reason. Just as there are many who will not add a listing if it has repeated derogatory editor notes.