Hi
- Thread starter rhys2007
- Start date
Hi
Many thanks for the prompt reply.
I realise that there may not be specified times, however an indicative approximation would be helpfull. i.e. does it take weeks or months.
In one place it says "All reports will be investigated expeditiously "
and in another thread
"Anyone with the (Meta) title below their name will go out of their way to make sure any abuse found is dealt with as soon as possible (frequently within one or two days)."
It's just getting rather frustrating not having my site listed whilst a competitor sits as a star site in the catagory I have applied to despite having 12,000 pages of material copied from other sites and affiliate links, little or no original content and pages that haven't changed for 3 or 4 years.
The fact that there are links between the competitors site and the catgories editors site (and there is material copied between the editors and the competitors site) just rubs a bit more salt into the open wound.....
The additional fact that over half the sites in a particular section bear no relation to the catagory is also 'interesting'.
Any assistance in progressing the matter would be appreciated.
Many thanks for the prompt reply.
I realise that there may not be specified times, however an indicative approximation would be helpfull. i.e. does it take weeks or months.
In one place it says "All reports will be investigated expeditiously "
and in another thread
"Anyone with the (Meta) title below their name will go out of their way to make sure any abuse found is dealt with as soon as possible (frequently within one or two days)."
It's just getting rather frustrating not having my site listed whilst a competitor sits as a star site in the catagory I have applied to despite having 12,000 pages of material copied from other sites and affiliate links, little or no original content and pages that haven't changed for 3 or 4 years.
The fact that there are links between the competitors site and the catgories editors site (and there is material copied between the editors and the competitors site) just rubs a bit more salt into the open wound.....
The additional fact that over half the sites in a particular section bear no relation to the catagory is also 'interesting'.
Any assistance in progressing the matter would be appreciated.
Here's the thing -- even if the investigation was completed, your site would not necessarily be listed as a result of the investigation. And understand that investigation takes time, especially if the situation isn't as cut and dried as the complainant thinks it is, and the results of the investigation aren't always what you think they should be. Trust that it is being looked at but that we don't have an ETA for when the report will be closed.
Hi
Again many thanks for the prompt reply.
For clarity, your assumption that I am looking for inclusion of a site is wrong.
I have not asked that someone looks into the listing of my clients site as part of the abuse report.
I am looking for the correction of bias (either intentional or otherwise)
Primarily all I'm asking is that someone visits the first page of the site in question, placed there by the dmoz editor, and click the 'sitemap' link on the front page and waits for the 1.5MB html file listing all the pages in the domain, nearly all of the 12,000 of which are copied from elsewhere on the web and dont even refer to the regional catagory the site is placed in, and draw there own conclusions if the site is appropriate for dmoz. I have given this specific information previously together with other 'facts' e.g. URLs of the editors site.
I appreciate that my position maybe perceived as being biased. However please note that all I have made are factual statements. My 9-5 work requires nothing less.
No doubt dmoz wishes to maintain integrity.
Whilst writing I will also give credit to the meta editor who originally responded within a day of the orginal abuse report for being upfront in saying he wouldn't deal with it because he knew the editor.
Again many thanks for the prompt reply.
For clarity, your assumption that I am looking for inclusion of a site is wrong.
I have not asked that someone looks into the listing of my clients site as part of the abuse report.
I am looking for the correction of bias (either intentional or otherwise)
Primarily all I'm asking is that someone visits the first page of the site in question, placed there by the dmoz editor, and click the 'sitemap' link on the front page and waits for the 1.5MB html file listing all the pages in the domain, nearly all of the 12,000 of which are copied from elsewhere on the web and dont even refer to the regional catagory the site is placed in, and draw there own conclusions if the site is appropriate for dmoz. I have given this specific information previously together with other 'facts' e.g. URLs of the editors site.
I appreciate that my position maybe perceived as being biased. However please note that all I have made are factual statements. My 9-5 work requires nothing less.
No doubt dmoz wishes to maintain integrity.
Whilst writing I will also give credit to the meta editor who originally responded within a day of the orginal abuse report for being upfront in saying he wouldn't deal with it because he knew the editor.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
You are looking for a correction to (preceived) bias, and what is being said in this thread is that it will be looked into and simply because the status of the report is still "New" doesn't mean nothing has been or is currently being done. You want a specific time frame and that is simply impossible to give.
And what is being said here is that someone (or multiple somone's) very well may have already done just that and possibly more or less. There very well be an investigation taking place and until somone changes the status (manually) it wil still show as "New". A non-editor would have no way of knowing who placed what, where or when. The investigation of an editor is taking very seriously to both protect the editor for wrongful accusations and to protect the directory from abuse. If the edits are found to be abusive they will be corrected and the abuser will be dealt with.rhys2007 said:
Actually I wouldn´t say that the answer provided by editor wing is 100 % correct. Internally there may be more levels of abuse investigation. The public can´t escalate the process though. An alternate way to report things is to contact ODP staff using staff at dmoz.org.
sitting quietly whilst waiting
Whilst waiting for something to happen...
If a site was essentially 12,000 pages of copied 'ezine' articles with no relevance to the catagory it was placed in, would this warrant listing on dmoz as one of the main sites shown on the subcatagory listing page?
I'd say no, but just wanted a reality check.
Whilst waiting for something to happen...
If a site was essentially 12,000 pages of copied 'ezine' articles with no relevance to the catagory it was placed in, would this warrant listing on dmoz as one of the main sites shown on the subcatagory listing page?
I'd say no, but just wanted a reality check.
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
Something already happened.
Have you looked for listings of the URL that you were complaining about in the abuse report within ODP recently? They were removed a couple of months ago. (Don't go checking in the Google directory because that's well out of date.)
Have you looked for listings of the URL that you were complaining about in the abuse report within ODP recently? They were removed a couple of months ago. (Don't go checking in the Google directory because that's well out of date.)
The link to the site containing 12,000 ezine articles is still there.
I checked dmoz recently because the particular site has significantly dropped in the Google organic search positions, having spent several years at the number 2 spot for the most relevant competitive search term.
I thought that something had happend on the ODP listings. But it isn't. Presumably it is some change to the way Google has rated sites for relevance, the details of which we will never know.
I checked dmoz recently because the particular site has significantly dropped in the Google organic search positions, having spent several years at the number 2 spot for the most relevant competitive search term.
I thought that something had happend on the ODP listings. But it isn't. Presumably it is some change to the way Google has rated sites for relevance, the details of which we will never know.