Going public with abuse data

Hi,

I submitted a very clear case of conflict of interest and possible abuse many months ago, and it continues to be listed as new. I don't care about the outcome of the case - all I have ever wanted was another editor to make a fair editorial judgement about my companies website in comparison with other sites in that category.

I am willing to put in 1-2 more months of waiting as I understand the nature of a voluntary organization takes more time. However the day will come when I give up on this system and put all of the information I have into a website. It will not reflect well upon the organization and raises many questions, especially when coupled with the relationship of Google and Amazon (public companies) to Dmoz data.

I don't wish to reveal any info about my case here, because honestly, I fear retribution from "behind the green wall". I'm really starting to think this is a doomed organization. I don't want to believe it, but too many categories are out of date, many editors are professional SEO consultants, and quaility sites are denied for political or bueracratic reasons. Where is the editorial integrity?

sincerely,

very frustrated entrepreneur
not going away

hiroshi said:

...but too many categories are out of date

Click to expand...

0% are 100%

hiroshi said:

many editors are professional SEO consultants

Click to expand...

Sad but true.

hiroshi said:

quaility sites are denied for political or bueracratic reasons.

Click to expand...

"bueracratic" = "following guidelines"?

hiroshi said:

Where is the editorial integrity? ... very frustrated entrepreneur

Click to expand...

Hmmm... You should have left this last bit out. You had me for a while. I was thinking you were just taking vicarious pleasure going round the directory and checking and analyzing and reporting but... Ah well...

Every case of a site not getting added in time to meet the webmasters personal schedule of site promotion is not a case of editor abuse.

Having seen many site owners post publicly about the so called abuse of their site getting removed by a competitor, when in fact, the site is still waiting to be reviewed or has been refused by a number of different editors because it clearly does not meet the guidlines, I've become a little cynical about claims like this. So when you go and post it publicly, make sure you have your facts and can defend your position.

[I don't deny there is abuse, however, the amount of abuse is overstated]

Hi,

Well nothing is 100% of course, but it is a general trend downwards that I observe. And I stand by it.

But anyway ... without naming names or categories, let's say my site only fits into one category, and that category is edited by a professional SEO consultant with clients that compete with me.

Am I to understand that Open Directory policy allows SEO consultants to edit categories in which they have professional associations? Please do not answer yes and then talk to me of "integrity". It is easy to say there is little abuse when it is institutionalized.

Again I just want somebody else to be the editor in my case.

I think you will find several SEO forums run by people who used to be editors. One can speculate why they are no longer editors.

hiroshi said:

without naming names or categories, let's say my site only fits into one category, and that category is edited by a professional SEO consultant with clients that compete with me.

Click to expand...

Why would it hurt that SEO consultant, if indeed he was editing that cat, to include your site? I don't understand.

Often editors get accused of inactivity. But to keep squelching your site, before any of the 100s of other editors could get to it and with more looking on, smacks of highly malicious behaviour.

Aside from that, your posts contain highly dubious statements which I'm too kind to list and refute bullet fashion here.

Please list them - I would be happy to refute them one by one, and perhaps even agree with you on some of them. I am fair minded.

I have well documented information that a prominent editor in the business section is an SEO consultant and has clients in categories for which he is the editor, and that he attempts to cover up his SEO affiliations.

I have been managing major web projects for fortune 500 companies for over 10 years ("la de dah" you may say but it is relevent). I assure, that after, in good faith, giving this process 8 months, if I feel this case was not handled in a fair manner, I can and will do an effective job of taking this information to the public.

hiroshi said:

a prominent editor in the business section is an SEO consultant and has clients in categories for which he is the editor

Click to expand...

This is fairly common. If the editor is "prominent", meaning high up in the hierarchy?, then of course there're many sites listed further down the tree and there's a good chance that the editor might have a connection with one or two, or more. But it is difficult for editors to hide affiliations, as I'm sure you're aware.

hiroshi said:

and that he attempts to cover up his SEO affiliations.

Click to expand...

Editors don't like making email addresses and personally identifying information public. This is understandable. This is what you mean by "cover up"?

hiroshi said:

I have been managing major web projects for fortune 500 companies

Click to expand...

Then you should find your work highly satisfying and consuming. If I was such a high flyer I wouldn't be wasting so much time with the little people down here...

jgwright said:

This is fairly common. If the editor is "prominent", meaning high up in the hierarchy?, then of course there're many sites listed further down the tree and there's a good chance that the editor might have a connection with one or two, or more. But it is difficult for editors to hide affiliations, as I'm sure you're aware.

Click to expand...

Well, it is not a meta editor. I am referring to categories for which this person is the direct editor. But I do understand your point.

jgwright said:

Editors don't like making email addresses and personally identifying information public. This is understandable. This is what you mean by "cover up"?

Click to expand...

Very good point. But in this case there are specific details that are worthy of consideration, such as listing your job differently on different websites. Not blatent, but as you might say, "dubious".

jgwright said:

Then you should find your work highly satisfying and consuming. If I was such a high flyer I wouldn't be wasting so much time with the little people down here...

Click to expand...

You got your little zinger in there like you always do. Ouch!

Appreciate the constructive feedback. You should try to treating people with respect before you write them off as crackpots. Perhaps you have been doing this too long.

I'm sure we could keep going back and forth on the finer points, but that will not really help me in the end. If anyone can take some kind of action let me know. Once again - I believe my site deserves a check by an unbiased senior editor.

Ultimately, I will do as will do, but I will give it yet more time.

Thanks all for info,

submitted a very clear case of conflict of interest and possible abuse many months ago, and it continues to be listed as new.

Click to expand...

I want to point out that an abuse report still in "new" status isn't necessarily being ignored. I haven't looked at your specific report but conflict of interest and abuse don't always go hand in hand and is frequently difficult to prove.