Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
You can sue AOL - they don't care.
Anyway - there are two ways around this - the banging your head way - and my way.
You can continue to do what you are doing OR
get a new ip, email, and register sites under a company name, diiferent address and telephone number.
This won't help with your old sites, but it will with your new - and you can never be sure that if you do not do this - that they aren't going to penalize you.
Also, your ideas about google and dmoz are misplaced. You do not need to be in the DMOZ for a good ranking. It just so happens that many good sites are in the dmoz and google happens to show good sites in their rankings. the two aren't cause and effect.
ADDED: Actually, when one of the sites was removed from DMOZ it went from top 5 to being out of the top 200 after Google updated the link removal. The traffic to that site almost stopped and costed my business thousands.
[edited by: allanp73 at 10:02 pm (utc) on Oct. 28, 2002]
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
A meta may prove me wrong, but as far as I am aware it is unlikely that an editor would normally check a "routine" submission against an ex-editors list, unless the reviewer had some reason to do so.
Assuming that your new submission was indeed a new site, not just a clone of an earlier one, reviewers normally have better things to do than check against "whois" to see who the registrant is. They would then have to check against the "Ex-editors" list and link you with a particular ex-editor....not an easy thing to do unless its a specialist topic and the present editor knows who you are (perhaps from the spat that resulted in your being dismissed the service)
Memories are long in DMOZ, but normally ex-editors are not discriminated against...unless there is some personal needle. If you honestly believe that you are being unjustly kept out of DMOZ with new sites, then file an abuse report with full chapter and verse...but if you know that the discrimination is justified, then avoid making more enemines within the gilded portals of DMOZ by filing a complaint that will get nowhere.
Unless you are in:
or something like that - the boost it gives you is generally small.
google updates once a month and sites go up and down for a variety of reasons.
the #1 reason that you see sites from the dmoz in top listings is for the reason I already mentioned:
Google picks good sites and in general - good sites are in the dmoz.
This will not persuade people that swear that their yahoo and dmoz listings help them immensly in google.
I have hundreds of sites in and out of dmoz. Do I like dmoz? Sure. Do I submit to dmoz? Sure. Would it bother me tomorrow if dmoz went down the tubes? Not really - it would all average out.
NOTE: This has been going on for several months now. And I've tried many tries to try to get help from DMOZ.
While editors are advised to read internal editor notes [dmoz.org] on urls prior to listing, a note solely indicating "Owned by ex-editor someguy" does not enjoin an editor to deny it a listing permanently and universally.
A note "Owned by ex-editor and persistent deeplink spammer someguy" still wouldn't ban the site, and an "Owned by ex-editor someguy-- check for cloaked affiliate links" note is similarly a directive to check-- not to delete automatically. Nothing in the Site Selection Criteria [dmoz.org] obliges an editor to bar such a listing; rather, the editor is more expected to look at the site to confirm the notes and not take them at face value.
Explicit flagging and banning of sites-- "Owned by ex-editor someguy's company, which installs redirects to child pornography as soon as url is published in Google. DO NOT ADD" in a big red box and boldface type -- is relatively rare compared against the millions of urls already in the directory and the hundreds of thousands waiting for review. And the banned sites are typically from known spammers [dmoz.org], or from domain hijackers, cloaked resellers, or others whose content cannot be trusted to resemble in a week what it appears to be at the point of editorial review.
So again, as others in this thread have said for various reasons, don't lose too much sleep regarding those sites.
How would you feel if your site was linked to mine and suddenly was added to this list and prevented from being added to DMOZ?
My reputation and the reputations of others is affected. My business and the businesses of others is affected.
It is a big deal!
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).
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.
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]
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.
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]
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.
The reason you see it all the time is because it's such a problem. What about the others that are under the radar. I know of at least 5 "situations" going in DMOZ right now. Everybody here can say that. It's an accepted fact. I believe it's from the bottom to the top like that.
The original poster said he was concerned about his reputation...thats what I got from him. I dont think it's a concern from a corrupt org like DMOZ. Thats what I think.
The reason you see it all the time is because it's such a problem. What about the others that are under the radar. I know of at least 5 "situations" going in DMOZ right now. Everybody here can say that.
You seem to make these broad accusations. What if I stated that about these forums or its moderators. I am not a dmoz troll as referred to in one of your previous posts and I consider myself more professional than to call people names that go against my personal beliefs - no matter what it is. I was visiting and supporting(donations) these forums before ever becoming an editor. So please, no broad based accusations.
Why don't you sticky me about these 5 cases. And since you seem to know that everyone else on this forum has 5 cases - sticky me those also. I will make sure they get to the proper Meta.
This is a shameful act and this behavior should rightfully be condemned.
How dare these people edit without considering the consequences of their actions.
Shame on them! Shame on them!
[edited by: NFFC at 5:41 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]
[edit reason] Thoughtless comment removed [/edit]