Is this Abuse? I think so...

Quick: What the easiest way to make sure your site/company can keep a competitive edge online against competitors? Become the gatekeeper to your specific business category on DMOZ perhaps?

Well that is exactly what has happened in one financial category here on DMOZ, which consititues a conflict of interest in my mind. Maybe its paranoia, maybe its not.

It irks me to know that I am relying on a competitor in a very competitive market to allow my site to be included in a very important directory that is crucial to my business.

I have already filed an abuse investigation request, but I wanted to make sure this is the type of thing that would be considered abuse.

Am I correct in my paranoia?

No.

Not everyone is dishonest.

We have checks and balances in place to ensure that an editor does not use his or her position to an unfair advantage, and have protocols in plaace to address how to right any wrongs in the event a problem does arise.

The mere fact that they are a competitor is not abuse.

So I am supposed to just trust that the system works, that everyone is honest, and allow my competitor to simply decide whether my site is included?

I don't know this person for sure blocked my entry on purpose, however the fact that there is motive or opportunity raises concerns to me about how editors are chosen and the power that they hold, especially when the editor's site is listed in the category.

Did you file an abuse report? http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

Maybe its paranoia

Click to expand...

Yes it is

my site to be included in a very important directory that is crucial to my business.

Click to expand...

If this is the case then either you are in the wrong business or you are running it in totlaly the wrong way. You should never rely on the fact that your site will be included in DMOZ or any other searchengine/directory for your business to be succesfull.

So I am supposed to just trust that the system works

Click to expand...

Yes. And that is why we have the possibilty to fuile an abuse report. If any editor has done something (s)he shouldn't do it will be corrected and if the wrongdoing is seriously enough the editor will be punished. But just being active in the same type of business is not seen be us as a problem.

If you have serious reason to believe there was abuse and you have prove you can file an abuse report. Go to the category involved and click on the "report abuse/spam" link at the top of the page.

We do take allegations of abuse VERY seriously. Editors have been removed for self-serving editing.

If you've filed an abuse report, it will be investigated.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the responses. I have filed an abuse investigation request. Like I said, I don't know for sure this has happened, but the fact that there is a possibility has raised concerns in my mind.

Thanks.

The fact that a competitor edits "your" category and your site was rejected from said category does not necessarily equal abuse since a large number of editors can and do edit in any given category.

Sorry, didn't mean to affend you by referring to it as my category. Anyways, apparently I have upset you all by raising this possibilty.

Thanks again for your comments.

No one's upset. You're reading offense where there is none both in this thread and your other thread.

Anyways, apparently I have upset you all by raising this possibilty.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is upset that you raised the possibility.

What is upsetting is that, with no evidence to back it up, you tarred the ODP editorial community with the broad-brushed accusation that if we compete with you, we must be corrupt.

Upsetting indeed!

A true little story that might help you see it from our perspective: About 25 years ago, I left a job in the computer industry and we bck to my first love, journalism.

The general manager of the division where I formerly worked found out where I was going and called my editor, claiming that I could not be trusted to cover his division in a fair manner.

My editor informed him that just because he was incapable of being ethical, did not mean that others were, he should not assign his value system to others, and that I would be assigned to cover whatever the editor chose until such time as I proved myself to be either incompetent or unethical.

That, my friend, is why accusations without evidence or basis are upsetting.

Hi,

Like I said earlier I don't know for sure, however I thought it could be a possibility since I wasn't given any reason for my denial. However I have learned in the last few days the apparent reasons for my denied listing. Had the reasons been made availablei, I would not have jumped to such bold (and probably rushed) decisions. I would hope that someday ODP revamps ther policy of not providing reasons for denial. Obviously had I know the reasons prior to filing the abuse report, I wouldn't have done so.

Thank you.

Keep in mind that "spam" to us is anything that isn't listable but is submitted. So being told it is spam really isn't telling you why it's spam.

Oh, so then maybe I still don't understand why I was denied. No matter I guess. I just can't see going through all this just to get listed in your directory. I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, but something just doesn't seem right with the way things work here. The secrecy, the lack of information, its very clandestine and in a word, shady. There are sites listed in the directory I was applying for that have about 20 pages on them of 1 paragraph of text, yet I have tools for my visitors in addition to valuable content, yet I can't get listed. I don't get it, but I guess unless I'm an editor I never will since there is no way to find out exactly why I was denied.

Thanks again for the replies.

Abuse

spectregunner said:

What is upsetting is that, with no evidence to back it up, you tarred the ODP editorial community with the broad-brushed accusation that if we compete with you, we must be corrupt.

Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that you are criticizing a person concerned about abuse for lack of evidence when you're well aware that there are virtually no means for collecting reliable evidence based on the black hole that is your submission and status update process.

When you're given the status "awaiting review" in a category with 37 entries which a competitor edits and it's been 24+ months since your submission, there might be cause for concern. How can anyone come up with a smoking gun in this situation within the ODP system? Send a note to the editor asking "are you blocking me because my site competes with yours?" in the hopes that they respond, "Yup!" and then forward their response to the ODP abuse investigation team?

This is pretty simple. Whenever you create an organization with a hierarchy of positions with varying degrees of authority (at DMOZ submittors at the bottom and meta editors near the top) there will most definitely be people looking to join the club with their own interest in mind. As good as your screening is, I'm 100% sure people slip through. I've read so many times on the Submission Status board messages from editors saying that they are bogged down with so many sites to review asking that users lighten the load by not resubmitting. With such a heavy load, how can you also expect us to have confidence that you can police your own editors against conflicts of interest with your 'checks and balances'?

This talk of checks and balances and protocol sounds like some of the systems my government has in place but please don't try to make pass it off as such. The general users of DMOZ don't have visibility into your checks and balances like we do with government, so you shouldn't treat someone who suspects abuse as a conspiracy theorist.

In a real system of checks and balances, conflicts of interest are never tolerated and decision makers usually recuse themselves from such situations.

That being said, I've been to trade shows and have seen competitors in various industries get along face to face, but this ain't no trade show! This is the cut throat world of the internet and as everyone knows, the anonymity that it provides can make people sometimes act less amiable.

Give us tools to collect evidence before criticizing us for not doing so! I'd personally like to be able to see how many sites a given editor has reviewed for a category, how many declines and how many acceptances. A persons intentions would seem suspicous if they became an editor for a category, added one or two sites in the following week or so and then vanished.

After two years of waiting, I suspect abuse in my category. My competitor and I offer nearly identical services and content EXCEPT that he charges for his while mine is FREE and I have no pop-up ads nor any advertising at all for that matter. He is listed and I'm not. I will NOT file an abuse report because unfortunately I do not have enough evidence.

The Abuse Repost does not ask for evidence, it only says "This system enables users of the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) to report suspicions of abusive editors/conduct to DMOZ meta editors and staff." If you suspect that someone is being abusive we need to hear about it to fix the problem. We may not agree with the suspicions, but we will certainly check it out. We can't check into any allegations though if we don't know about them

Abuse

Thanks for the reply.

As you can see from my quote, according to spectregunner, we do need to provide evidence, other wise we are tarring the ODP editorial community.

In my case, I believe that the person is using all means possible to delay my listing. For example, an editor suggested to me that if my site has a user login, I should submit a demo username and password so that the editor can check out my content further. I think that this is a great suggestion even though an editor can see enough of my content to understand what my site is all about and whether or not it meets ODP standards. The category editor's site also has a user login and additionally requires payment to see all of the functionality. In that case, does a site have to donate a membership to ODP to give the editor enough visibility? Based on my respect for the ODP editorial community and the suggestion made to me about username/password info, I've re-submitted providing a demo login and password. I'm quite sure that bumps me to the back of the list.

Its been nearly a month since my re-submission and I've now discovered that the Status Update forum policy has changed from a 1 month wait between status requests to 6 months. To me that means that the editor of my category can postpone any decision for 5 months and 29 days without the appearance of abuse and then simply has to find another way to stretch the ODP guidelines to avoid reviewing my site again requiring me to re-submit and postpone another 5 months and 29 days.

I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing my site looking for reasons that it might not meet ODP standard, giving editors the benefit of the doubt, and can find none. It was most discouraging to discover after so much time that a competitor with such similar content is also the editor of our category, a very deep and specific category to our functionality.

So do you suggest I still submit an abuse report even though I re-submitted less than a month ago and despite the fact that it might be interpretted as tarring the ODP community? I believe the response will be:
"Your site was not reviewed due to the editor not being able to see most of the content (or so he claims). You just re-submitted providing login info so check back in 6 month." My site traffic is seasonal, so 6 months really means 1 year to me.

Because I respect the ODP editorial community, I'm open to suggestions.

As you can see from my quote, according to spectregunner, we do need to provide evidence, other wise we are tarring the ODP editorial community.

Click to expand...

To clarify: filing an abuse report requires no evidence, and is a private activity.

Making public pronouncements that there must be corruption becasue a site was not listed, should demand a higher standard of proof.

You are always free to submit an abuse report. But an official abuse report must be posted through dmoz.org, you will find a link at the top of the category page.
As donalbd wrote "We may not agree with the suspicions, but we will certainly check it out."

But let me explain one thing. The 6 months wait time between status request has totaly no relation with the amount of time it will take for a review to happen. I have seen sites waiting for 2 to 3 years before I was looking at the suggestion.

As you can read on our guidelines (and also have accepted when you suggested the site)
"An ODP editor will review your submission to determine whether to include it in the directory. Depending on factors such as the volume of submissions to the particular category, it may take several weeks or more before your submission is reviewed. "
"Please recognize that making the ODP a useful resource requires us to exercise broad editorial discretion in determining the content and structure of the directory. That discretion extends (but is not limited) to what sites to include, where in the directory sites are placed, whether and when to include more than one link to a site, when deep linking is appropriate, and the content of the title and description of the site. In addition, a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion. You should not rely on any aspect of a site's inclusion in the directory. Please understand that an editor's exercise of discretion may not always treat all submissions equally. You may not always agree with our choices, but we hope you recognize that we do our best to make fair and reasonable decisions."

And here in our faq http://resource-zone.com/forum/faq.php?faq=how_long#faq_how_long_3
"The time between submission and an editorial review ranges anywhere from two minutes to over two years. This is due to the voluntary nature of the ODP - editors volunteer their time free of charge to do what they can to build the directory. Reviewing submitted sites is only one of many tasks which editors need to perform, and for many editors, not the top priority."

Abuse

spectregunner said:

Making public pronouncements that there must be corruption becasue a site was not listed, should demand a higher standard of proof.

Click to expand...

If you're attempting to ask for a higher standard of proof, your system must also provide a means for gathering such proof which it currently does NOT.
Until the time that it does, you may have to kringe at the suggestion that corruption exists where conflicts of interest can exist in a system that may be too bogged down to police it effectively.