dmoz refuses to remove dead, fraudulent link

I've been trying for the last four months to communicate with dmoz via the 'official channels', to tell them about a site that's currently listed in category:

Top: Arts: Music: Styles: Rock: Progressive: Bands and Artists: G

The site's title is "Galahad"; its URL is http://home.zonnet.nl/schudel/galahad/

Despite the fact that this site has a) been dead for about two years (its owner simply went AWOL), b) has long been superceded by the REAL official Galahad site at another URL (which has been submitted to the same category but refused without explanation) and c) is actively causing damage to the band because of its appearance on search engines that use dmoz, it still appears in the directory.

I'm obviously curious to know on what grounds dmoz persist in referencing this dead (and, in strictly legal terms, fraudulent) site, yet refuse to acknowledge the real thing.

Even if you won't list the currently active official site, is there any chance you could at least remove the old one to prevent further damage to the band's reputation?

Thanks in anticipation.

The link you provided is not a dead link. The site is active.

The site shows creation and update in the coding of 09/04/2002 which is either today or April, depending on what they use in Netherlands

I'm obviously curious to know on what grounds dmoz persist in referencing this dead (and, in strictly legal terms, fraudulent) site, yet refuse to acknowledge the real thing.

Click to expand...

It appears to be the lack of anyone editing within that category. Out of 8 submissions in that category, five were from you about this matter. I've made the change.

As a volunteer organization, we all pitch in and help, but there are areas of the directory that sometimes become neglected. There's a difference between refusal to make a change and the lack of someone to do the work. However, when such problems are pointed out, most all editors will do their best to fix them.

Hope this helps -- Foe

The old listed link is not dead, but did contain information about the band's new domains http://www.galahadonline.com/ and http://www.galahadonline.co.uk/ , both of which forward to http://www.galahadonline.fsnet.co.uk/ which I listed. So it wasn't dead, but did give evidence that it was out-of-date and superceded by the new site -- Foe

The link you provided is not a dead link. The site is active.

Click to expand...

Okay, so I got the terminology wrong. I meant that the site is "dead" in the sense that it hasn't been meaningfully updated for a good two years (just twice in fact -- the latter back in February, contrary to "just-browsing"'s assertion). (And moreover its owner no longer has permission to use copyrighted material from its original owners, the band.)

Indeed the actual pages are still there, as you point out. But it's a case of "the lights are on but nobody's home"!

Having said all that, I'm grateful to "Foe" for having gone to the trouble today to sort this listing out. Thank you.

dmoz Feedback Form

One final point if I may.

It's significant that I come here to this forum with my dmoz gripe, and the issue then gets resolved satisfactorily quite literally within minutes.

Yet umpteen (well three or four!) communications to the dmoz organisation via the official Feedback form over the last few months on this particular topic go totally unacknowledged.

It's obviously a nice gesture to have a Feedback mechanism in place, but if it's not going to be taken seriously (as it clearly isn't), then what's the point?

Instead of the Feedback form, why doesn't dmoz simply provide a link to this forum instead!

Re: dmoz Feedback Form [100]



>> Instead of the Feedback form, why doesn't dmoz simply provide a link to this forum instead! <<

This forum is actually *unofficial*. It run by the Editor Community (a few prominent Metas). It is not run by dmoz or AOL/TimeWarner, neither do any of their *staff* participate in it (as far as I know). This forum hasn't been active very long.



>> Yet umpteen (well three or four!) communications to the dmoz organisation via the official Feedback form over the last few months on this particular topic go totally unacknowledged. <<

I already gave an answer in another thread where you made similar comments: http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=general&Number=6445

This was not a refusal to change the details, simply the fact that no-one had looked into that category for several months so your change note was still waiting to be actioned. It has been sorted now.

I haven't listed any new sites today. I have been going through doing quality control, moving back into unreviewed all those sites that are now unavailable. The automatic checker has flagged up thousands of sites as '404' today, so those have also got to be sorted out, along with all the other ongoing jobs.



[100]

Re: dmoz Feedback Form

>> why doesn't dmoz simply provide a link to this forum instead!

It does. There is a prominent link to this Forum in the third paragraph of the first page of the ODP Guidelines.

Re: dmoz Feedback Form

Yet umpteen (well three or four!) communications to the dmoz organisation via the official Feedback form...

Click to expand...

Feedback on the main feedback form ( http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi ) goes to staff, and is likely to not get a response as they are quite busy and more concerned with the "big picture."

Feedback to specific editors (follow the link at the bottom of a category page to their profile, and follow the feedback link from their) is more likely to get results, but one's mileage may vary -- Foe

Re: dmoz Feedback Form

scormie,

You do have to realize, anyone can say a site should be removed, but that doesn't mean we will remove it.

Scenario: My site competes with your site. I contact ODP and say your site is "unofficial" and "damages the reputation of x." It doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean that ODP should remove your site.

From an editor's persepective, how do we know? An editor will look at a site and if that editor feels the site has enough content and is useful, it is listed. Anonymous people saying a site should be removed could be trying to be helpful, just as easily as they could be someone trying to get their competition removed.

So please don't think we aren't hearing your requests.