Action or Response from DMOZ

For several years now, companies with which I am affiliated have been penalized by a lack of action or adequate response by DMOZ. Perhaps, forum members could offer some assistance or clarification, please.

Background:

It should be noted that this is not a spontaneous post from an inexperienced newcomer. This is posed by a person with 20+ years of experience in the industry who has tried for several years to resolve the dilemma within the public processes of DMOZ. (My resume is at RandyTaylor.com)

What I know:

Over the years, several sites with which I am affiliated have been rejected, or accepted and quickly dropped, in the stock photography categories. These sites adhere to all DMOZ rules. Categories are appropriate. Some sites are the market leaders in their niche. There is never an explanation for the rejections.

I have applied a few times to be an editor in a couple of categories, but been ignored or rejected. For the times that a response was sent, the explanation for rejection was so illogical that it must have been a form letter that was randomly generated.

I have attempted to communicate with someone from DMOZ, including a recent email to staff@dmoz.org. There has been no response.

What I would like to know:

How can I view a list of real names of editors in the stock photography categories?

Is there a way to see a history of which editors are rejecting specific sites?

Is there any process available for challenging the participation of specific editors?

Is there any process available for challenging the denial of service of legitimate sites?

Conclusion:

Given the consistent, long-term exclusion of legitimate sites and lack of appropriate response, the only logical conclusion that one can reach is that an automated process is malfunctioning or that an editor is engaging in anti-competitive trade practices. Absent any response from DMOZ, this will need to be taken to the next level, which would appear to be the legal department of AOL, starting with an email to AOLLegal@aol.com. Before moving the process to the next step, I would like to exhaust all possible avenues for a remedy within DMOZ. Hence, this post to the forum. Can anyone assist or advise with this situation?

Thank you.

I have applied a few times to be an editor in a couple of categories, but been ignored or rejected. For the times that a response was sent, the explanation for rejection was so illogical that it must have been a form letter that was randomly generated.

Click to expand...

All applications are reviewed by real people. While sometimes default, prewritten replies are used, those are never randomly generated. I believe the responses you received indicated that the categories you applied for were broader than we usually assign to new editors -- http://dmoz.org/Business/Arts_and_Entertainment/Photography/Stock and its immediate subcategories are each too large for a new editor.

How can I view a list of real names of editors in the stock photography categories?

Click to expand...

You can't.

Is there a way to see a history of which editors are rejecting specific sites?

Click to expand...

Not by you.

Is there any process available for challenging the participation of specific editors?

Click to expand...

If you feel there is abuse by any editor, please feel free to use our abuse reporting system to report them.

Is there any process available for challenging the denial of service of legitimate sites?

Click to expand...

As is frequently mentioned in this forum, we are not service providers. The fact that we permit people to suggest their sites for inclusion does in any way obligate us to accept those suggestions nor are we under any obligation to review them within a specific timeframe (the add URL page makes that very clear).

Absent any response from DMOZ, this will need to be taken to the next level, which would appear to be the legal department of AOL, starting with an email to AOLLegal@aol.com. Before moving the process to the next step, I would like to exhaust all possible avenues for a remedy within DMOZ. Hence, this post to the forum. Can anyone assist or advise with this situation?

Click to expand...

Once threats of legal action are made, editors are not able to touch the sites in question until AOL legal gives the OK.

And before you file a complain I suggest that you review some of the Internet Law.

Constituionality - As a non-paid and volunteer editorship directory, the directory is not obligated nor is liable to anyone as the nature of the word volunteer directly is self explanatory.

Contract - There is no putative class action in your case since the directory is non-paid in nature and the editors in questions are volunteers.

Use of the Directory - A similar case to this is Search King, Inc. vs. Google Technology, Inc. Case No. Civ-02-1457-M (W.D. Okla., Jan. 13, 2003) The Court held that plaintiff was unlikely to prevail because Google's determination of how a page is ranked in response to a search query is an expression of opinion protected by the First Amendment which cannot give rise to a tortuous interference claim.

To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must show, among other things, that there is a substantial likelihood it will prevail on the merits of its claims.

Improving editing

Thank you for replying. I am pleased to have an interactive dialogue with someone at DMOZ after so many years. Your title indicates you are an administrator. Are you the same person who administers email responses at staff@dmoz.org? Concerning the points that you mention:

motsa]I believe the responses you received indicated that the categories you applied for were broader than we usually assign to new editors -- [url]http://dmoz.org/Business/Arts_and_Entertainment/Photography/Stock[/url said:

and its immediate subcategories are each too large for a new editor.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was one of the replies. There are 12 listings in this stock photo category. Six should be moved to the stock/companies category. If six listings are too many or too broad for a new editor, could you please suggest a category that would be small enough? To best benefit the community, I would prefer to edit a category in which I have substantial core expertise, such as stock photography, photojournalism, visual search, content licensing, keywording, or content hosting & fulfillment. I would welcome the opportunity to donate my time as an editor in an appropriate category.

motsa] ... If you feel there is abuse by any editor said:

to report them.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestion. I have now filed an abuse report.

motsa said:

As is frequently mentioned in this forum, we are not service providers. The fact that we permit people to suggest their sites for inclusion does in any way obligate us to accept those suggestions nor are we under any obligation to review them within a specific timeframe (the add URL page makes that very clear).

Click to expand...

I understand the official position that DMOZ has no obligations of any kind. That said, would it not be of interest to DMOZ and the community at large to improve the process? Would it not benefit everyone if valid web sites did not have to wait many years for inclusion, or if DMOZ were to include the most innovative and leading web sites in a particular niche? My suggestion is that DMOZ and the community would benefit more if editors did not exclude the best sites in a category. In raising awareness of this problem in this forum, I am hopeful that there will be individuals inside DMOZ who agree with this basic premise. Perhaps you are one of them.

motsa said:

Once threats of legal action are made, editors are not able to touch the sites in question until AOL legal gives the OK.

Click to expand...

That may be useful information for future reference. Since no threat of legal action has been made and a dialogue has now been initiated, it does not apply to this particular discussion. But thank you, anyway.

Did you ever study our submission guidelines at http://dmoz.org/add.html ?

Whilst you acknowledged that you'd read and agreed them every time you suggested one of your websites, it's possible that you skipped by them.

If that's the case, I suggest that you read them now; pay particular attention to the strictures in step 1.

There are 12 listings in this stock photo category.

Click to expand...

Actually there are 828, as indicated by the number after the category path near the top of the page. This figues includes the sites in all the sub-categories, and is the relevent one here since editors automatically get rights in any subcategories of categories for which they are listed as editors. 828 is far too big for a new editor.

RandyTaylor said:

Yes, that was one of the replies. There are 12 listings in this stock photo category. Six should be moved to the stock/companies category. If six listings are too many or too broad for a new editor, could you please suggest a category that would be small enough?

Click to expand...

This is not correct. If you become editor of a category you also become editor of all underlying catgeories
Business: Arts and Entertainment: Photography: Stock (828)
With 828 listings this is much to large. Normal advice I have seen is <100 and preferable <50.

RandyTaylor said:

That said, would it not be of interest to DMOZ and the community at large to improve the process? Would it not benefit everyone if valid web sites did not have to wait many years for inclusion, or if DMOZ were to include the most innovative and leading web sites in a particular niche?

Click to expand...

Just one small problem. How do we know which are the "most innovative and leading web sites". We must review all websites before we can know. Because this is not a very smart way to proces suggestion we list a site when it is of acceptable quality. It might not be the best, but that we will only know if and when we have reviewed all sites.

RandyTaylor said:

My suggestion is that DMOZ and the community would benefit more if editors did not exclude the best sites in a category.

Click to expand...

How do you know they are excluded. Most probably they are just waiting for review. When that review wil be. Noone knows (not even the DMOZ editors) could be tomorrow, or next week, month, year.

A word of quiet advice

A word of quiet advice. In your doubtless forthcoming application for a category not exceeding 20 sites (including those in descendant categories), don't threaten legal action. It really won't improve your chances of being accepted.

Your title indicates you are an administrator. Are you the same person who administers email responses at staff@dmoz.org? Concerning the points that you mention:

Click to expand...

I am a forum administrator (that's why the label says "RZ Administrator"), not an ODP Admin. I'm just a plain old Meta editor at the ODP.

That may be useful information for future reference. Since no threat of legal action has been made and a dialogue has now been initiated, it does not apply to this particular discussion.

Click to expand...

What you wrote in the final paragraph of your original post pretty much constitutes a threat of legal action.

This is the kind of "dialog" that should never have been opened -- it's not what editors volunteered to deal with, and it is not a constructive activity. Anything related to legal activity, even thinking about it, basically translates into "that's the job of AOL legal staff, not editors." I'm closing this thread: the volunteers have always been strongly encouraged not to "dialog" about specific site placement -- it leads to abuses and conflicts of interest. And "strong dissuasion" becomes "outright proscription" when the possibility of legal action exists.

The notion that "I'm not going to threaten legal action unless you do what I want" constitutes less of a threat than "I'm going to sue you" is (for all I know) a valid LEGAL distinction -- but it is not a valid LOGICAL distinction.

End of dialog.