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]

I think the sad thing here is not ODP editor corruption (a rare thing, IMO), slow review time, or inconsistency in the quality of listings.
The sad thing is that whenever someone talks about improving the ODP the ODP editors run a campaign to discredit the person instead of addressing the issues. A favorite seems to be calling the suggestion a "Rant", or one that I see in several discussions about a certain ex-editor who writes articles for traffick.com is to call him a "disgruntled ex-editor". Recently, The Contractor said that there are two kinds of people in regards the ODP. Webmasters who are happy with the ODP because their sites are listed, and webmasters who think its bad because their sites aren't listed.
That is an over-simplification. It's hard to think that anybody with minimal intelligent ability could dismiss thousands of discussions about the ODP with such a self-serving over-simplification.
From the ODP Social Contract:
"We will do our best to list web sites in a fair and impartial manner, and consider all user requests and suggestions for improvement."

That should be updated to say:
"Suggestions for improvement are not welcome."

And as long as I'm saying this, at the same time: to all the editors who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours editting, thank you.

[choster]

Suggestions are always welcome. They are not necessarily feasible or reasonable. They are not, in outside forums or within the ODP, necessarily made with complete command of all the facts. They are not, in the heat following the observation of some entirely fictitious slight, necessarily well-considered even with the facts available.

Someone might fear that placing a url on some internal list prejudices editors against it. Well, if you want to go that far, you ought to fear "ordinary" editor notes placed on a url as well. The fact that there are twenty notes attached to a url, even if all the notes are "fixed typo in description," could make editors "afraid." Who knows what kind of absurd reason an editor might have to sit on a site? Maybe there are too many hyphens in the domain name. Maybe the fonts look funny in the Japanese language version of Netscape 4.5. If someone is looking for a conspiracy, s/he's 100% certain to find it.

As for the criticism of pointing out disgruntled ex-editors, well, usually there is no need to. But then, I don't take medical advice from a doctor whose license was revoked, or base my investment decisions on those of a convicted fraudster, or accept moral advice from a defrocked minister. And if I were trying to learn how to have my site accepted into the ODP (and minimize the chance of being traumatized with placement on some secret conspiracy list), I might appreciate learning when advice or suggestions could be coming from a less than reliable source :).

[cornwall]

Suggestions for improvement are not welcome."

I am with Mosley 700 on that one. The perception to the non editor is exactly that.

I don't take medical advice from a doctor whose license was revoked, or base my investment decisions on those of a convicted fraudster, or accept moral advice from a defrocked minister

If might hazzard a few remarks on your statement above. It does more than most, to explain the problem of the ODP viz a viz the non-ODP world.

The doctor, fraudster or minister have been through a due legal process, and have had a right to defend themselves, and the public can read about the trial and form a judgement of their own.

The ODP system is a cross betweem the infallabilty of the pope and the divine right of kings. Decisions are made behind closed doors and the outside world, or those on trial are supposed to accept the divine wisdom of those who have made the judgements. The "disgrunted ex-editor" is disbarred without being aware of what they are being accused of, which perhaps explains why they are not exactly "gruntled ex-editors" ;)

It is interesting that the statement comes from a meta editor, in other words one that has participated in such defrockings/unlicencing/convicting of editors.

Unfortunately these remarks of mine are likely to be taken as an attack on the ODP, that is far from the case. My position is similar to Mosley 700s in post 81.

I am just commenting on a meta editor's incorrectly and emotively equating the ex-editor to a defrocked minister, licence revoked doctor or convicted fraudster. And using the very phrase "disgruntled ex-editor" in the way that Mosley 700 draws attention to.

While such language may go down well in ODP forums, it does, if I may say so, look frankly ridiculous here in a more open forum.

<retires to the bunker, waits for the heavy artillary...and its a lovely sunny morning here>

[mosley700]

I think another problem is, to some people the lines have been drawn up.
I have almost begged several high ranking editors to step back, take an impartial look, and discuss it. I am not attacking the ODP. I am not ranting. There are a lot of people suggesting a new directory. But I'd like to work with the one we got.
But when I ask these questions, "Why can't we get a more open and honest directory?" and "Why can't we improve submission - to - listing time?" The attacks started. It was called a "rant" by a "disgrunted ex-editor", and accused of being, well, I'll quote,:
"an ex-editor (who, I believe, was removed because of abuse or self-promotional reasons)."

(I only listed one of my sites, and I went out and found my competitors sites and listed them, even though they were not submitted. I was removed when I refused to double list a site with multiple URLs.)

All I want is to improve the directory. We ought to be able to discuss this in an open manner. What does that mean? Editors need to end this policy of attacking anyone who complains, and calling them a "disgrunted spammer", or assuming their site is worthless. It's not the editors' ODP. It belongs to everybody.
Apeuro, Kctipton, hutcheson, this is not a personal issue, and I, for one, appreciate all the time you put into the ODP. I use it often for directory searches.

[cornwall]

All I want is to improve the directory. We ought to be able to discuss this in an open manner

Mosley 700, they will be thinking you and I are the same identity (for the record, we are not)

I agree with that post too.

It seems impossible to make any "suggestion" on the ODP, without it being construed as an attack on the institution itself, and the metas that control it.

I too am here to help, guys. ;)

[Laisha]

Well, if you want to go that far, you ought to fear "ordinary" editor notes placed on a url as well.

I did. In message #80.

[steveb]

"But when I ask these questions, 'Why can't we get a more open and honest directory?'"

"It seems impossible to make any 'suggestion' on the ODP, without it being construed as an attack on the institution itself..."

Notice that the above "question" is a multi-level and direct attack and not truly a question at all. When people make attacks and put question marks at the end, there isn't much incentive to try and extract positive discource out of them.

[mosley700]

>>"But when I ask these questions, 'Why can't we get a more open and honest directory?'"
"It seems impossible to make any 'suggestion' on the ODP, without it being construed as an attack on the institution itself..."

Notice that the above "question" is a multi-level and direct attack and not truly a question at all. When people make attacks and put question marks at the end, there isn't much incentive to try and extract positive discource out of them.<<

It is a question. Notice on Zeal that editor message boards are visible to everyone. Notice on Zeal that each site listed shows who listed it. That is a democracy. The current state of the ODP is not democratic or even a "Republic of The Web". As a political system, the ODP is a_______(fill in the blank).
Just because you don't like the question doesn't mean it's not a question. Open up the open directory. No more secrets.

[cornwall]

The current state of the ODP is not democratic or even a "Republic of The Web". As a political system, the ODP is a_______(fill in the blank).

Any state has a constitution, including the ODP. Problem with most state's constitutions is that they become almost impossible to change once they have been written

[Garve]

Having read this topic from the start, along with a number of similar ones on other forums, I've a sinking feeling that I'm not going to receive any encouragement on this subject, but here goes.

I've just found out that my login has been disabled. I won't go into the reasons here at the moment, but suffice to say that I believe this to be very harsh.

I have been given the standard Login Removed screen as shown in message #70 on this topic. The last paragraph leads me to think that any attempts by me to have the situation looked at again would be wasted, no matter whether my exclusion was justified or not.

Am I correct in this, or is there some route I can take which might allow this decision to be reviewed? Has anyone any experience of being excluded and then re-admitted?