Is this Abuse? I think so...

Abuse

hutcheson said:

"Something more substantial" (than mere potential conflict of interest) would be something like: POINT TO AN ABUSIVE ACTION! Inaction is not abuse. Action is abuse. The results of our actions are visible to all the world (except for deletes from the unreviewed queue, which you can find out about from the forum.)

Click to expand...

hutcheson, come on, man! That quote was specifically referring to conflicts of interest. It was suggesting that you need something more substantial than mere SUSPICION of conflict of interest before reporting conflict of interest. It was NOT in reference to the ONLY type of abuse that you think is worth reporting, inappropriate listings. You're the only editor I've heard make that assertion and that quote would indicate so as it was made by another editor.

I especially like the concept you're trumpeting that inaction, intentional or not, is not abuse because you can't touch it, taste it, see, or prove it. Thank god that concept doesn't fly in the real world! Ok, maybe its not evidence of abuse but maybe its evidence of incompetence, something ODP claims it tries to weed out in its editors. You'd of course argue that if everyone submitted abuse reports based on inaction, you'd have 50 billion abuse reports sitting in the queue. Well, that's a lame argument. This is the new millenium. Information is at our finger tips. If ODP provided a tiny bit of info to submitters, that would easily quell many concerns. Competitor directories do it! As it is, there is nothing like that in place and I'm sure you get PLENTY of abuse reports regarding inaction.

motsa, I know it's a long thread, but if you read the entire thread, you'll see that the first quote in your reply was made by me in response to an editor trying to make it SOUND like a real system of a government that is responsible and accountable for dealing with issues fairly. Terms like "checks and balances" were being thrown around about a system where there is no visibility into those "checks and balances" by the people they'd supposedly serve (already mentioned earlier in this thread). I objected to that assertion and reminded that editor that "This is NOT that system". Believe me, I'm fully aware it's not. That was my point.

This whole thread has been about the abuse reporting system. hutcheson claims that the only form of abuse that should be reported is an inappropriate listing. Period. Do you agree with that assertion? I'm not airing any greviance about my submission (already mentioned earlier in this thread). We've been discussing the abuse reporting system itself.

Your third comment is most promising, but do you agree with hutcheson's assertion that inaction, intentional or not should not be reported? I believe that you, as an editor have access to real data, as you've implied, and can EASILY determine whether a claim has any basis or not and act accordingly. According to hutcheson, this type of abuse should never be reported! I have read nowhere that that is the case, except in replies from hutcheson.

Thanks for your response.

Abuse

lkevinl,
What kind of a "handicap match" did you get in with these people? They are of course, above reproach. You "of course can not provide evidence" and they are hurt that they, because there is a "2 month to 2 year" wait (how utterly ludicrous), that "they stand accused".

Nothing was directed at anyone personally. Imaginary scenarios were explored and taken as "personal indictments". Our esteemed editors, DO in forum posts, refer to people and inquiries in an abusive manner (I have evidence). They repeatedly let us know "we can hit the bricks" and go look into other directories (I have evidence..and we are).

Their complaints about the volume of sites awaiting review and the millions of submissions, while another illustrates they are under-staffed, further points to their finely tuned machine's slow degradation. "The system this, the system that"....."is working great". Well it must not be, when they crawl all over miscreants like you and myself for approaching them to obtain a straight answer. It doesn't work so good when they can't get the staff to review 2 yr old submissions..all the while...turning down editor applications. (I have evidence)

A couple of months ago in a public forum, directories were being discussed and the problems of getting listed, trying to communicate in a professional manner, being "crushed" immediately by the above "tag-team" tactics, and the general arrogance of the staff at the ODP. This was not my thread, or did I post in it, but it's a good indicator of the way ODP is starting to be viewed by the community of site owners on the web.

Obviously no one from this directory is reading the major "search engine" and "directory" forums or they would see how the backlash is rising. There are a lot of (righteously PO'd) webmasters who are doing just what you suggest and seeking out the other directories. Many are real "comers" too! They either are ignorant of the "buzz" on the net, or perhaps find it complimentary in some odd way, to be continually bashed in large open forums, with all parties in agreement. (I have evidence)

To ice the cake, one poster identified that the only way he could get his site listed was to apply for the category he needed to get in and "placed his site in the ODP" himself and it was approved or whatever the next step is. You could even back track this poster to his main web page, do a "whois" search and find out his name. It may have been a lie, but for reason in my own guidelines, I won't mention the editor and site (but I have evidence).

You may also notice that the ODP listings are all stripped away from Google listings for awhile now..an indication of ??...well....lots of room for speculation.

I do believe that maybe 80% of editors have "no agenda" whatsoever and are truly trying to be the best of the best, but your admin's numbers?: "99%" are true blue devotees of the Project? I think not. (I have no data to support this remark except that the 99% defense statement is a red flag on it's own)

(OOPS, more circumstantial evidence found) I just checked another SE forum (after doing a Google search "is dmoz worth it anymore") and another guy ID'd himself as an editor and said after a lengthy post regarding exclusion of a site from the ODP: "PM me the urls' I can't put them in if they aren't in my categories, but I'll have a look at them"....geesh!

You may now commence to trashing everything I have posted. It's ok, it's in your natures. I am an editor at several other web directories who welcomed my efforts upon application, hope I see your sites in my "pile".

Abuse

Hi ronin,

I guess I'm not as angry as you are yet, but certainly don't like the implications some editors have made that either abuse is not worth reporting because they can't police all of it or that we should have more evidence of which there is none to collect due to lack of vision into the system.

I know how they'll reply to you. They won't bash you. They'll respond, in an arrogant, "we're better than you because we've been accepted to the club based on our 'editing' skills so why question us" kind of way, that:

1. There mission is NOT to serve submitters.
2. They review sites when they can get to them They're not obligated to review submission.
3. Insert other canned responses here.

Other directories have definitely figured it out. Zeal is one of them. They test submitters as well as editors. I had to carefully read and understand their EDITING policy before I could submit and was tested on it. And the test wasn't a "pass on the first try" kind of test. You really had to understand the policy. It seems like a policy like this would be something the ODP editors would literally wet their pants over! Can you imagine submitters actually having to understand the editing policy?!? In addition, you can see the activities of both submitters and editors which can make abuse CLEAR or disprove it CLEARLY, something that would then minimize the work of investigation!

I know what the response to these comments will be. "Go to that directory and stop bugging us". I went, but will continue to bug you at least every friggin' 6 months as will MANY other users. "If that directory was so good, why aren't they #1 like we are?" (I'm assuming ODP is #1) Well, in the web, it's not always that who is best is #1. Sometimes it's who is first and when you're talking about a directory that, overtime, collects data, being first is definitely important.

The point is there IS a better way, but posts from bums like us won't make them change their system.

Ahh, you have given al the answers already yourself

You are showing that you start to understand the way we work.
Next thing to do is to accept it.

Fortunately, we never have to accept it. It's not in our nature. That's the nature of the process!

Abuse

lkevinl and all,
My post was not to display anger. The ODP has always been "decent" in their treatment of me personally and when an editor has been wrong and challenged they have written me personal notes to that effect. This was only twice, but they were SO wrong (human beings do make mistakes...no problem with that). The thing that bothered me is that the thread gets shut off, (not locked) and they handle the mistakes via private email or PM. Then things are handled "in house" and big whopping errors are swept away from the prying eyes of the people. I am only recalling a few, of hundreds of threads across forums on the web. They are rife with the same type of complaints like I mentioned in this thread. 1. That some editors are too curt & snippy to the point of "personal" abuse. (Both in forum replies on status, and the way you were manhandled earlier in this thread for instance) 2. That they post, derisive remarks, directly and indirectly at posters who post inquiring why their sites can't be included. 3. That they post "as if" their system is w/o flaw and above reproach, when it is not.

I thought you mentioned that submitters were part of the masses they serve. Did a night's sleep mellow your opinions? To go on any further would be repetitive as my last post mentioned that it isn't just me, or you, that gets frustrated with ODP, but the "masses" of submitters (without which there would be no purpose for ODP editors or the Directory).

Just go to the forum on: submission status inquiries to see example after example of this cycle. Sure, some of the webmasters get a little too carried away, they don't read the guidelines and start premature threads and submit posts that they shouldn't, but are far surpassed, for rude behavior, by editors (who should know better) than "Joe Newguy", who just made his first site and is overly zealous about getting listed. I have seen some awful things said to webmasters who were not posting or submitting per "Guidelines".

I am only the messenger here, as only one editor has ever posted anything in a rude manner, directed to me, over the years that I have made any posts about a site. I believe that my post is "on target". Also, that the problems I've mentioned are real. The ODP appears to be losing ground in their ability to handle the load. They have created something larger than it's components can control effectively. (in regards to submissions, updates, growing the editorial staff) Their statements, that no abuse is present 99% of the time, are not realistic. Also, the ODP staff appears to the submitters, in forums across the web, as being "arrogant", "out of touch", "unresponsive to submitters" and consequently will end up continuing to degrade the reputation and stature that they profess to uphold. The summit is a small place and easy to fall from.

Try not to think of me as an ODP basher, but a reporter giving you the news. I'm only re-stating the opinions of thousands of webmasters whos' clients they claim to serve (thus the " "). I agree with some, but not all of them. There are some REAL ODP bashers posting around the web. My posts are what they are, real facts and not just my own opinions and they're not ALL wrong.

I won't continue as I do have an amount of respect for the ODP, but that doesn't mean that I have respect for every editor or their methods of communication. The ODP "has been" the model of excellence for human edited directories, but "ship-jumpers" and other groups of people with vision are setting their crosshairs on gaining equal stature as the ODP. They are at the doors already, showing up in Google backlinks, and passing "PR". They are being picked up by all of the major SE's. It's not a one man show anymore, if that's any consolation. I figure business rules apply and the ODP will stay on top, or lose ground, based on their "actual" and "perceived" impact/usefulness. The Directory, still seems to be "the place to be listed", whether it continues to maintain it's lofty status is in the hands of these editors. Good competition usually instills a need to do things better, or at least, right and with courtesy. !

Hi ronin, I wasn't disagreeing with you and still believe what I believe. I was just saying you sound a bit angry than I do. Unfortunately, I'm coming to the realization that not much will come of our grievances though, that's all. <sigh>

This whole thread has been about the abuse reporting system. hutcheson claims that the only form of abuse that should be reported is an inappropriate listing. Period. Do you agree with that assertion? I'm not airing any greviance about my submission (already mentioned earlier in this thread). We've been discussing the abuse reporting system itself.

Click to expand...

You are so misreading hutcheson's posts. That isn't what he's saying. You are entitled to report any abuse that you suspect. But we need something more than "my site hasn't been listed so the editor must be abusive" to go on. Yes, you don't have access to the information we have but "my site hasn't been listed yet" isn't even a suggestion of abuse let alone anything approaching evidence of it.

but do you agree with hutcheson's assertion that inaction, intentional or not should not be reported? I believe that you, as an editor have access to real data, as you've implied, and can EASILY determine whether a claim has any basis or not and act accordingly. According to hutcheson, this type of abuse should never be reported! I have read nowhere that that is the case, except in replies from hutcheson.

Click to expand...

Inaction, of and by itself, is not abuse. As long as an editor isn't only editing their own sites and/or isn't editing their own sites or competitor sites inappropriately, inaction (i.e. not reviewing any particular site) isn't abuse. This is why you should ask for a status check first -- if your site is still awaiting review, there is no need to file an abuse report as that isn't what the system is for.

Obviously no one from this directory is reading the major "search engine" and "directory" forums or they would see how the backlash is rising.

Click to expand...

ronin100, we read them all the time but we don't actually care all that much about the bitching that goes on there.

It may have been a lie, but for reason in my own guidelines, I won't mention the editor and site (but I have evidence).

Click to expand...

Mmm, lots and lots of people claim to have evidence of abuse by editors but very few report them. If you choose not to report abuse that you know (as opposed to suspect) is happening, you are a big part of the problem.

Their statements, that no abuse is present 99% of the time, are not realistic.

Click to expand...

Well, since we're the only ones who see the abuse reports, we'd obviously be the ones to know the stats, wouldn't we? Now, granted, maybe abuse is actually happening 50% of the time but everyone is so busy reporting inaction while no one bothers reporting the big stuff that we'd never know.

In any case, having said all of the above, this is not the forum for bitching and complaining about the ODP. It's not the forum for reporting how much people are bitching and complaining about the ODP elsewhere on the Internet. You've got plenty of other choices if you want to do that. This thread has dragged on well beyond the guidelines for this forum so I'm getting out my big stick and closing it.