Dmoz hit ending in "chainsaw"

Dmoz is a great directory. Yeah, a little slow at times and sometimes a bit too picky and somewhat biased in the sites they choose, but it's still great. I have noticed one thing though. In a certain category (not naming which) I have noticed a lot of prominent links related to one particular company. I don't think that's fair, but I'm not the one editing and if I were the one editing, I would be much more interested in originality instead of a particular company. My site has some original content, but some of it is affiliate. It is also an adult site. I worked extremely hard on it and hoped DMOZ would accept it, but when I saw the dmoz hit to my site it ended with "chainsaw". That is self-explanatory! That means they did not accept the site. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />I suppose I still have a small prayer that someday, they will. However, I do not feel I should change my entire site just to please DMOZ. I have a lot of faithful site visitors already, and do not feel it would be appropriate to my surfers. However, I guess I just want to know, does the www.dmoz.org ending with "chainsaw" mean my site got the dreaded axe?

Dmoz is a directory, not a search engine.

If you suspect that an editor is abusing his/her position you can anonymously initiate an investigation by using the form at http://inelegant.org/report-abuse/ (see the thread at http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=abuse&amp;Number=29144&amp;page=0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7&amp;fpart=1 for more details )

Chainsaw is the name of one of the editor tools. You shouldn't read too much into the values found in URLs.

Affiliate content does not automatically disqualify your site. Lack of unique content does. The Adult content does limit where your site could be listed, but the Adult/ area of the directory is fairly rich.

You must be getting a lot of exercise jumping to all those conclusions.

perhaps you are correct about reading into it, but "chainsaw" does sound a bit dooming, doesn't it? *smile*

*shrug* I use the chainsaw all the time. It is a tool for cutting through forests of spam submissions.

Did you spam? Then don't worry about it.

[added]
If you really want to know if your site got the "axe" you should post in this forum: http://www.resource-zone.com/postlist.php?Cat=&amp;Board=status

[/added]

I've seen this question before, and I can understand the panic when you see that in your logs. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

The normal mode of going through a site is one at a time, in whatever search order you have set in your preferences. The disadvantage with this is that, if you have a lot of submissions and want to scan them for obvious duplicates, and "easy picks", then you pull up a (IMO) rather unfortunately-named tool called "Chainsaw" - it allows you to see all the unreviewed on one screen. Among the many links on this page is a link to the URL itself. If an editor clicks on that, they will be able to take a quick look at the site. It is this which you saw in your logs.

It most certainly doesn't mean that the submission has been deleted - it just means that an editor called up the site from the chainsaw screen.

Does this make it clearer, and put your mind at ease a little?

Just to add another voice, I use the "chainsaw=1" mode 99% of the time: whether trolling for spam, looking for good sites to add, or sorting sites down to more appropriate subcategories. For the first and last tasks, chainsaw=1 is easier to use than "classic display" mode. (And just for the record, I sort more sites down to subcategories than I delete spam.)

Really, really. There is NOTHING to worry about. We can consign your site to individual oblivion perfectly well without the chainsaw. (A lot of times, when I suspect I'm going to delete a site, I'm careful NOT to let the referer show I'm visiting.) Or we can list a site just as well with it.

It is _strictly_ editor preference as to how to _view_ the unreviewed queue, not at all what they intend to do with the sites.

Yes it does help me some. I guess I am just extremely hopeful to get my site listed in "dmoz". As you know, it is like the "elite" directory to get listed in. Sort of the "cream of the crop", if you will. I'm already listed on google, aol, yahoo (had to pay for askjeeves.com <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> I just have this bad feeling that because I have some affiliate material (not all, but some) I will not get included.

&gt;&gt;somewhat biased in the sites they choose&lt;&lt;

Huh? Biased against crud, spam, and other sorry content.

in response to the "crud, spam" remark. I said nothing about bias against sorry content, that is understandable. I said "BIASED against companies putting their listings in DMOZ that do not favor the editor's own company"! It is a well known fact among webmasters and as a matter of fact it is a running joke among us referring to a particular category in DMOZ As a matter of fact, this particular editor has his own sites prominently displayed in DMOZ even though the content is basically just a banner/affiliate farm with zilch unique content! I am not saying it happens a lot, but in one particular category, 60% of the sites listed are to ONE particular company with a lot of the "same content". That is obvious BIAS. I do not see that happening in other categories. So you can keep your "crap, spam" comments to yourself, I said nothing about that. It is an obvious reason to exclude a site, i don't know why you even brought that up. I am not saying DMOZ is not a great thing, it is. And I understand that "crap, spam" is annoying, but that is NOT what I was talking about. I was talking about bias toward an editor's own sites/companies. I find that practice appalling when the sites have zero content except for affiliate banners.

Crying "corruption" while not doing anything constructive to point it out and get it removed makes you sound jealous, not outraged.

Looking at your yahoo profile I see you have some interest in the phone s*x industry. There have been problems in that area in the past, but it's been reviewed with a fine toothed comb more than once in the last year, and the junk and abusive stuff in there were removed. Perhaps you aren't looking at the most recent version of that category when you are complaining about it? There are obsolete versions of ODP's data floating around which certainly don't reflect the current situation.

If you really believe abuse is still going on, please visit http://inelegant.org/report-abuse/ and give details please.

no, not jealous. One can get high search engine positioning and google and yahoo, etc WITHOUT dmoz. I won't "cry" anything because it is just that, a running joke. I won't turn in an editor for doing these things because simply, a few webmasters I know have tried to, to no avail. However, like I said, as a whole dmoz is honest. It is just that one particular category

Well mistydk, if you look at the above posts a meta gave 2 possible ways you could report abuse. I have to wonder about people who complain about abuse, yet won't report it.

Well, then use the abuse reporting tool. Rest assured that abuse reports are taken seriously, and are appreciated. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I won't turn in an editor for doing these things

Click to expand...

Then tell me what the category is and I'LL turn them in.

Such abuse, if substantiated, is not tolerated.

So, either help rid ODP of this abuse, or stop spreading rumors about abuse that doesn't exist.

Hi! i didn't want to turn the editor in, so out of curiousity, I went to the category and emailed him myself. He explained he added his own sites because he felt they would be a valuable addition to DMOZ. I suppose I could agree with that, he's the one in charge after all (smile). I guess some of the other webmasters who had tried turning him in started talking a lot of "useless and rude" things and got chatter going around that was pointless, and I listened. I will no longer listen to what other webmasters say, I will go straight to the source (dmoz) from now on. Sorry if I offended anyone, he replied promptly and was very polite.

Several editors have suggested that you file an abuse report if you think there is abuse going on. The fact that the editor replied and said that his sites were a useful addition to the category in question is not an indication of either innocence or guilt. That's something that can only be determined by passing the information on to the ODP meta editors (either via feedback/PM or via the public abuse reporting system) for someone to investigate.