Starred Site in DMOZ

Is this for real?

[clickclick]

I am looking at the DMOZ directory (a regional cat) and right at the top is:

<snipped>

[indicates name change to protect innocent]

This is keyword stuffed in the title and description, the description does nor seem to follow the general scheme at dmoz and the URL points to a page within a web site. The main site URL is also listed in a sub cat down!

Do I smell a rat, or is this normal?

[edited by: NFFC at 4:58 pm (utc) on Nov. 3, 2002]
[edit reason] Sorry [/edit]

[NFFC]

Sorry for the edit clickclick but I must agree that looks very strange. I'd take it up with Dmoz or alternatively contact one of the many editors who post here.

[JonB]

indicates name change to protect innocent+url snip
--------

nffc - if he is innocent then there is no reason for this person to worry that his site will be deleted from odp.if he is spamer then lets get him out of dmoz and there is no need to protect him!

cna someone explain to me? i know that there are no ulr policy here but we aretalking about spamer(if that what he is or the guy that took advantage as a editor).i remember the thread whe ni defended "spamers" and was against reporting them to google spam report. i rememebr that i was in minority.so why would we care about some spamers site now?(if he IS spamer, idint see the link). so for google googleguy can take actions and for dmoz there are a lot fo editors here -they can take actions.

i would jsut need the clarification why would someone clearly breaking rules need "protection"?:)i am little puzzled. let me give example: if someone would show link of some killer or terrorist on maybe FBI forum would they remove the link although there is policy no ulrs for protection.i think they would make expetion for "bad guys". we are in the WebmasterWorld and here are spammers equal "terrorist" so i dont see reason to "protect" them.

simmialr was when someone posted link to totally blatant spam(direct or in form of google results).why remove such a link and protect the spamer?i UNDERSTAND for "not guilty" people but for spamers?

or maybe it is better to report this one directly to dmoz editors and that is all to it?pleae dont get too hard on me (well, i jsut hope this is corect phrase;) becasue i jsut want to understand .

[edited by: JonB at 5:19 pm (utc) on Nov. 3, 2002]

[clickclick]

I didn't include the URL, just the description, not sure why it was snipped, perhaps it would be too easy to find!

[NFFC]

>perhaps it would be too easy to find

Yeah :)

>or maybe it is better to report this one directly to dmoz editors and that is all to it?

Thats the one JonB, not our role here.

[clickclick]

Just to clarify, I have sent a message to the editor and clicked the copy to staff button. I don't know how to identify the dmoz editors in the forum. If this isn't the right course of action, will somebody please enlighten me?

[bird]

Such a listing could just be the consequence of an editor accidentally hitting the wrong button. Keyword loaded titles and descriptions typically end up in the directory when a submission isn't edited in any way before listing. The more blatantly spammy a listing looks, the bigger the chance that it ended up there by mistake, especially if the other listings in the same category all conform to the guidelines.

It's good to take stuff like that up with a nearby editor, but not good to publish identifying information elsewhere. For all we know, both the submitter and the editor *are* innocent. And even if there is abuse involved, that is better reported to a meta editor in private, so that they can investigate without having to fight any publicity battles at the same time.

[clickclick]

They would have accidentally pressed the 'Add Yellow Star' button as well then!

[Mike_Mackin]

The editor of that cat used the company name as his editor name and then cooled the site.

Trust me, the system worked.
Only thing left to clean up is the cooled star.