DMOZ down?

wrathchild said:

(...) Technical staff have been alerted (...)

Click to expand...

This is good news! Many thanks, wrathchild.

It is somewhat strange! Dogbows, you posted a addurl link in another post in a different section, I was able to access that no problem at all, but if I reduced the URL down to just dmoz.org it did'nt work, seems to me like some internal pages are working but not the main directory URL ...

Nigel

Does anyone have a take on this.

Click to expand...

Browser caching. Plus, the static pages on the public side are not written in real-time, but are written when there is a change. Any that are more than a couple of days old are almost certainly not affected by the "redirect to itself" issue which seems to be the root of the problem. And, there are multiple servers on the public side, and not all of them are necessarily affected.

Well the main directory URL is working for me, that is where I accessed the link that I posted in the other thread. See that is what I mean by it seeming strange that some parts work for me that do not work for you.

It is Maybe like wrathchild mentioned, we are accessing different parts of the public side of DMOZ on different servers? Maybe we are in different locations so we are connected through different paths to different servers and that is why we can access different parts of DMOZ? (If that makes any sense at all lol)

Nigel

I'm having the same trouble. I need for them to delete a posting about me that is false and is being circulated all over the internet. This is becoming very frustrating.

Does anyone know how I get ahold of an Editor to delete a posting that is no longer active or true in Internet Fraud?

Dogbows,

There are several different servers (proxies) serving content to dmoz.org. The variations in behavior experienced probably has something to do with that.

You may be accessing content through an ISP proxy without realizing it. That might explain why you do not see the same problems others do.

If a site is dead, or no longer contains information relevant to the category, you should submit an "Update URL" request. An editor will re-review the site, taking into consideration the reasons you gave for the request.

But you cannot have a site deleted because it frustrates you. (I'd be nuking whole subtrees in Religion and Music and Literature if that were allowed!) We do not judge whether information on websites is true or false. We review sites that allege unethical or illegal behavior, and place them in those categories. Repeat, we do not investigate whether those allegations are true.

So you are welcome to post a response on the internet, if you think your actions are defensible. Or ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Or sue the allegators to have the website taken down -- then file an "Update URL" request. But you may not argue the point with an ODP editor.

If someone did attempt to argue such a point, the ODP editor would have absolute proof that they WERE the sort of vicious person that DOES engage in unethical behavior -- to wit, attempting to suppress free speech, harassing editors, abusing the public feedback features of the ODP, etc. Any sensible editor may therefore wonder what other crimes and misdemeanors they might have committed -- and go searching for them on the net, to give a full picture of their reputation. (This has happened before!)

Hutcheson--

I will look into an Updating URL request. The website was posted by a convicted criminal, you can refer to this website: http://losangeles.fbi.gov/2004/fraudscheme040104.htm.

I appreciate your advice.

That's fine: post that on your website. If we have multiple pages on your firm, we can create a subcategory, and you are more than welcome to submit a response deeplink of your site to that category.

I will recommend that you polish your apologetic, though: just because "one" of the "many sites all over the web" was created by a con, is an almost contemptibly weak argument. (<rhetorical question mode>How about all the others? Is this a vast international conspiracy by ex-cons to defame you? Are you meaning to imply that all the websites with this allegation were put up by cons? Or is this just an attempt at "guilt by association?" And when those website owners start coming after you with libel charges, where should the legal papers be sent?</rhetoric>

In short, unless the facts are very much against you, you're better off avoiding the ad hominem arguments.

But post your response. I've personally listed at least one corporate response, even though I thought it was ... um, even weaker than the line you just pulled. It didn't matter: you have a right to make whatever form of response you think most appropriate.

Yay It seems like DMOZ is fully working again for me know

Thanks

Nigel

takenbydigital said:

Yay It seems like DMOZ is fully working again for me know

Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'm now able to browse the directory, but adding an URL is not working for me.

When I fill the Add URL form and press the Submit button, Firefox start to spin its dots and keeps spinning without response.

In the last try I let it to spin for about 10min without response.

This is the same behavior I experienced yesterday, right before dmoz.org went inaccessible to me entirely.

flaviovs said:

Hmmm... I'm now able to browse the directory, but adding an URL is not working for me.

Click to expand...

UPDATE: Tried again and got the Add URL form submited after only a small delay!

It seems everything is slowly going normal. Thank you all, specially the technical folk who probably had a hard time fixing the problem!