Editors with Conflict of Interest??

water gardens..gotta be one of the more relaxing things in life.....might just build myself one someday.....

This is unfortunatly the way DMOZ has chosen to maintain their integrity in the search engine market. We have tried for years to get listed in a regional category and every time we are denied. When we complain we get the exact same run around you are getting. I can quote you exactly what replies you will get from the editors on this forum because they are exactly the same excuses they gave us every time we complained. This is just a smoke screen to make you feel like someone is really going to look into what is going on but in the end all you will get is a run around and a lot of seemingly inteligent remarks and quotes that mean absolutly nothing. Every search engine and directory on the internet has accepted our site but not dmoz and the only logical explaination is whoever is the editor for the category we applied to is our competitor and they use their editor privlages to keep the competition down. I already know what the other editors comments we be regarding this post so there is no need to waste your time. I just wanted this poster to know they are not alone and not to expect any help on this forum. The only part that surprises me is that so many semingly inteligent editors would expect to allow this type of activity to continue for so long and not understand that no one is fooled forever by the long lists of excuses.

We have tried for years to get listed in a regional category and every time we are denied.

Click to expand...

When you say "denied", exactly what do you mean?

I mean after 4 years of submitting my site has never been added to the index. I can make other sites and add them to other categories but the category for my main site is never added. I know it would not be a popular suggestion among editors but to be totally fair and unbiased editors should not be allowed to edit any category that their own sites are listed in. Inspite of how honest dmoz thinks their editors are if an editor is in business on the internet and they have the means to manipulate the competition they will. It's kind of like having the fox guard the hen house if you know what I mean. If an editor is truly interested in improving the open directory for the good of the internet community then they would not mind at all being denied access to the category that hosts their own listings. I have also applied to be an editor for the same category several times but always turned down. I own and maintain one of Houston's largest business directories and have been turned down as an editor for dmoz as well as had my site in the que for 4 years with no placement. If you could tell me a real good reason for this I am all ears.

If an editor is truly interested in improving the open directory for the good of the internet community then they would not mind at all being denied access to the category that hosts their own listings. I have also applied to be an editor for the same category several times but always turned down.

Click to expand...

If you don't think editors should edit where their sites belong, why would you apply to edit where yours belongs? Or did you mean that everyone but you would be tempted to manipulate their competitors' listings?

I own and maintain one of Houston's largest business directories and have been turned down as an editor for dmoz as well as had my site in the que for 4 years with no placement. If you could tell me a real good reason for this I am all ears.

Click to expand...

We've already given you good reasons, but you don't like them. I don't know what else you'd like us to say.

Suppose you were an editor for all of the United States, as I am, and you decided to edit in one of our large cities, like NYC. There might be 1,000 site suggestions to review (as well as many other structural tasks to perform).

Only an experienced editor can edit in a large category like that, and maybe there's only one or two editors who work there regularly. I see alongside your name you're in Houston, which is an extremely large category. I very rarely get over there because there are many, many large localities, and even more small localities throughout the US who are also anxious to get listed.

I can't tell you how many site suggestions are waiting in a specific category, but, I can tell you that in large cities, as well as large states like California, Florida, NYS, and Texas, it's very considerable, and there's a steady stream of site suggestions coming in daily.

So, your assumption that an editor is a competitor and keeping your site out is false. It's much more likely that it just hasn't been reviewed yet, as many other site suggestions haven't been.

I don't know if there are any resident editors for Houston (I haven't looked), but I do know that there are State level editors and US level editors that wouldn't put up with any dishonesty in Houston, and many of those stop in and do a little editing there (we're spread a little thin), so many hands edit there, not just one.

I'm sorry we can't be as fast as you'd like us to be (at least with one particular site) , but we do the best we can.

As far as becoming an editor there in order to do it yourself, that's not a good reason for becoming an editor, .

Like I said it is not really the open directory as it is only open to the editors and no I have never heard any reason ever given only meaningless answers and rude remarks. This is like a private country club and no one is allowed in unless you know one of the members that has inside access. I have only followed the rules as set forth by dmoz and yes I would be willing to edit any category if dmoz would adopt the rule of not having access to my own category. You see your answer only confirms my beliefs as to what is really going on here. You say you would not be an editor if you could not edit your own category I wonder why ? Any way I will leave this site and have no further comments. Have a nice day !

You say you would not be an editor if you could not edit your own category I wonder why ?

Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

I, personally have no websites anymore, and I'm not afilliated with any, so (unlike yourself) I have no personal interest in any category.

When I did, I asked a senior editor to review the site (in my place), and then I cut that description in half to make it less than the descriptions for every other site in the category. I did that voluntarily so that there could be no question of my own impariality (though it wasn't required or expected of me).

I'm sorry that you're angry, but we can't give you preferential treatment over others.

The "Open" in Open Directory means the data we list is open for everyone to freely use, not that you can walk in and look around.

This is like a private country club and no one is allowed in unless you know one of the members that has inside access.

Click to expand...

Well, you know me, so that isn't true. If you mean know someone who would give you preferential treatment, I certainly hope not, that would be editor abuse and cause for dismissal.

I plan on listing ten sites or more today, if I have the time. Which ten of the tens of thousands that are waiting, is going to be pretty random. Perhaps your site will be one of them I run across, or perhaps another editor will run across it, but it's waiting on the same level playing field that all other sites are waiting on. Every site suggestion is equal.

no I have never heard any reason ever given only meaningless answers and rude remarks.

Click to expand...

You should go back and reread your earlier thread, where you were given very meaningful answers from many people. I myself told you that guides and directories categories are usually not enjoyable categories to edit because of all the spam and that your site was probably waiting for someone to decide to wade through the junk to review the listable sites.

yes I would be willing to edit any category if dmoz would adopt the rule of not having access to my own category.

Click to expand...

Then why keep applying for the category where your site belongs? Why not apply yourself for a category where you have no vested interest?

You see your answer only confirms my beliefs as to what is really going on here. You say you would not be an editor if you could not edit your own category I wonder why ?

Click to expand...

Given the time stamp, I presume that was directed at me but I defy you to show me where I've ever said that.

>> Personally im suspicious of editors that are big posters on webmasterworld <<

Interesting. Why single out one forum? There are lots of people there that are editors and you would never know it.

4 years and still waiting said jonscomputers and thats quite common. And we are told you may be in a pile of 1,000s of sites also waiting.

And then you see this sort of thing.
<url removed>

registered end of august 2007. Goes straight into a prime cat
http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Europe...Tourism/Accommodation/Guides_and_Directories/

The website is a lightweight nothing. How can it be listed almost as soon as its registered in a section where there must be 1000's of more worthwhile site?

registered end of august 2007. Goes straight into a prime cat

Click to expand...

When a site was registered is irrelevant. There are sites that are years and years old that don't have sufficient content for listing. And there are sites that were created quite recently that have tons. We're concerned with the content, not the age of the domain registration.

And "prime cat" is a subjective term -- what you may think is prime may not actually be prime. I would personally expect that the number of sites that consist solely of a directory of London accomodations (as opposed to London sections of larger lodging directories, which wouldn't be listed there) would be relatively small.

Well it seems you cannot defend it. First you talk about content when the example has no content at all. Its full of gibberish apart from a few links to a few hotels. Then you say age of registration is not important. Sir if you was a lawyer your clients would all be convicted. First we are told there are 1000's of sites waiting for review, then we are told a site can be posted almost within days of being registered and that you dont see anything fishy in that. Its really laughable that you think your comments even amount to a reply. The more you try and defend examples in this thread it seems the bigger the hole you dig for yourself.

Well it seems you cannot defend it.

Click to expand...

I have no intention of either defending nor vilifying the site you posted, which is why I removed it from your post. My comments were general and intended to address some of the misconceptions that you have about that particular category. I feel no need to defend anything, just though I might try to education you, though you appear to have your mind set already.

First we are told there are 1000's of sites waiting for review, then we are told a site can be posted almost within days of being registered and that you dont see anything fishy in that.

Click to expand...

The fact that there might be thousands of sites awaiting review in the entire directory is irrelevant to anything: (a) editors are not required to review suggested sites at all, let alone in any first-in-first-out order and (b) even if we did, few editors are able to edit the entire directory and so the age of suggestions outside of categories that they can edit are irrelevant.

motsa said:

I have no intention of either defending nor vilifying the site you posted, which is why I removed it from your post. My comments were general and intended to address some of the misconceptions that you have about that particular category. I feel no need to defend anything, just though I might try to education you, though you appear to have your mind set already.

Click to expand...

im not sure why im replying as your clearly not making a serious attempt to address the point of this thread. Obviously it would be hard for anyone to make a case for editor bias to you if you dont look at the examples/evidence when its given. I dont understand the point of general comments when specific examples are given other than the ostrich and head in the sand syndrome. If anyone wants the example i posted please sticky me.

The fact that there might be thousands of sites awaiting review in the entire directory is irrelevant to anything:

Click to expand...

This is the best bit of your post and one which shows your bias in its true light. The 1000's of sites waiting for review wasn’t posted originally by me but by crowbar. How strange then that it only becomes an irrelevant point when posted by a non-editor. You do not want to be drawn into specifics and facts and will only comment on the far more convenient ‘general concepts.’

Someone also previously asked why single out a single forum used by editors (webmasterworld). Well I would guess that was an example of how editors have a commercial interest in being a Dmoz editor. Im not sure there are too many long time posters on that forum who aren’t commercially involved with websites. One might ask if they would really give their time freely to dmoz if they didn’t get something out of it.
There was even a defence of adding ones own website in that its description was cut down . That gave me a smile.

If you believe you have real proof of editorial abuse, please use the abuse reporting tool at http://report-abuse.dmoz.org . If the example you posted were abusive, it would be directly against the forum rules for us to discuss it here. This is not the place to "make a case for editor bias". Sorry, but them's the forum rules, and for good reason.

Since a crappy site being listed is much more likely to be the result of a mistake, of an inexperienced editor not recognising a bad site, or of a site changing content, than of editor abuse, it is more constructive to submit an update request to the category and ask that the site be re-reviewed. (Use the "Update listing" link at the top of the category page.)

However, every case of suspected abuse which is reported using the tool above is investigated. We care much more about abuse against the directory than you do, you can be sure of that

The 1000's of sites waiting for review wasn’t posted originally by me but by crowbar.

Click to expand...

That was in a discussion about the New York City category, remember.

You said that there "must be 1000's more worthwile sites waiting" in Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/London/Travel_and_Tourism/Accommodation/Guides_and_Directories/ ; I very very much doubt that. That is a category that is only intended for general accommodation guides (not specific accommodations) in London. However, knowing accommodation guides categories, it is likely to attract a lot of spam and generally unlistable junk. But again, it doesn't matter how many sites are waiting for review (and if you re-read crowbar's post which you were happy to quote you'll see that he doesn't say or imply that it is a concern), because the editors are encouraged to find good sites on their own as well as reviewe sites suggested from thr outside.

nea said:

Since a crappy site being listed is much more likely to be the result of a mistake, of an inexperienced editor not recognising a bad site, or of a site changing content, than of editor abuse,

Click to expand...

What are you basing this on? I do not agree with that statement and wonder how you justify it. Editors are required to pass an initial test of their ability to write compliant descriptions and recognise appropriate sites. Why is it MORE likely that inappropriate listings are mistakes rather than something more serious?

Sometimes a site may be moved from an incorrect category to the correct category and if an editor has editing permissions in both, but is just moving sites that are misplaced, and the editor forgets to hit the right button (keeping the site in the unreviewed), it might get accidently listed without being reviewed and edited. Hey, it happens, .

But again, it doesn't matter how many sites are waiting for review (and if you re-read crowbar's post which you were happy to quote you'll see that he doesn't say or imply that it is a concern), because the editors are encouraged to find good sites on their own as well as reviewe sites suggested from thr outside.

Click to expand...

That is correct. Sometimes posters see what they want to see, instead of what's really there, or take things out of context and spin them. If it wasn't against the Directorys policy, many of us would just as soon have all submissions shut off, they're unneccessary.

This is the best bit of your post and one which shows your bias in its true light. The 1000's of sites waiting for review wasn’t posted originally by me but by crowbar. How strange then that it only becomes an irrelevant point when posted by a non-editor. You do not want to be drawn into specifics and facts and will only comment on the far more convenient ‘general concepts.’

Click to expand...

You came and bumped a thread that was more than a month old. I didn't reread the entire thread to discover what specific comments you might have taken issue with. *I* was responding just to you, not to anyone else and the rest of the thread (which had died off long before you chose to post here) isn't germaine to what I was writing.

What are you basing this on? I do not agree with that statement and wonder how you justify it. Editors are required to pass an initial test of their ability to write compliant descriptions and recognise appropriate sites. Why is it MORE likely that inappropriate listings are mistakes rather than something more serious?

Click to expand...

She's basing her comment (and I would absolutely agree with it) on longtime experience as an editor in general and as a meta editor in particular. Sometimes it's a case of the wrong button being pressed and no one noticing. Sometimes it's confusion over minimum content requirements for a given category, or missing the unacceptable aspects of the site during the site review. None of that is editor abuse.

motsa said:

She's basing her comment (and I would absolutely agree with it) on longtime experience as an editor in general and as a meta editor in particular. Sometimes it's a case of the wrong button being pressed and no one noticing. Sometimes it's confusion over minimum content requirements for a given category, or missing the unacceptable aspects of the site during the site review. None of that is editor abuse.

Click to expand...

>>> Sometimes its this, >>> Sometimes its that.
That seems to be the depth of most of the comments going through the thread. It is common to this thread that editor comments are confined only
to narrow general scenarios which have little bearing on the actual discussion that went before them.
You have not attempted to address the specific issue of how a site can be listed just after being registered when it has no content, just some gibberish pages and some links of which a few are ontopic. The cat being within a very competitive area (one of the biggest cities for city accommodation searches and yet questioned as to whether it was prime or not). You go off on the usual tangent mentioning editors are encouraged to find sites on their own as though this could be an explanation. Well no it couldn't be an explanation because there was now way to find that site and even if there was it wouldnt be justified an inclusion either on its own merits or by a comparison to the 1000's of sites that are ontopic for that niche. I guess the next reply would be that this is just my subjective view (either though it was said there was no intention to even look at it). Actually subjectivity is only within parameters, as you reach the edges of those parameters consensus becomes the norm. So it is not valid to claim subjectivity if you do not look at the example.
And then we come back to the fact that this is just another example to throw into the thread. All posters being met with the same response. That being unlikely scenarios thrown about as though they were the strongest and only probabilities. Im sure you will either come back with the same weak responses again or with none at all. Clearly the policy here is NOT to address facts and specifics with common sense reasoning.
In many ways its quite amusing, much like a political debate where its the norm to talk AROUND an issue rather than to address it. Those within the debate think they are doing a wonderful job of intentional non-committal answers while those observing the debate just smirk and hold their hands up saying, "they are all the same, why cant they just answer a question with a straight answer"!