Novice mistake

It certainly looked personal to me with these comments:
"I believe you may regard it as settled that your site will not be put in that or any other category. It has no content that can be reviewed, and that's that."
The sites that are EXACTLY like mine are listed in a previous reply above. The point is: I am asking to be treated fairly. It is impossible for me to comprehend how sites that perform the IDENTICAL service are included but mine cannot.It is unfair and discrimnatory.Maybe I misunderstood but I thought everyone was to be given equal consideration in the DMOZ.

No discrimination is involved. No new lead generator sites have been added since yours was rejected. The directory guidelines had changed. New site reviews and old site re-reviews are now using the new rules.

You do not have any more right to demand that an editor immediately review someone else's site, as you do to demand an editor immediately review your site. You can ask is that certain sites be re-reviewed. You've done that. It's a reasonable request in my opinion, but I can't promise when it will be acted upon.

If you have some reason to believe that sites have been reviewed in a manner inconsistent with the current guidelines, you can file an abuse report. That might result in removal of sites and/or editors -- and if so, we would have apprecated it. But in this case it WON'T result in your site being added.

I have made an abuse request with the DMOZ, but have not heard anything about it. In fact, outside of the information that I have gotten in this forum (of which I am thankful) the only time I ever received a response from the DMOZ was when I was rejected as an editor.

The sites that I had outlined earlier in this thread are the sites that should be re-reviewed. These are the sites that I was questioning, and I am fairly sure these are the same sites that natim is also questioning.

Speaking for myself, while I obviously don't agree with the ban on lead generation sites, as long as it is something that is actually put into effect, then I would not have a further complaint. If these sites are removed, as I think they will be upon further review, that would be fair. I recognize the huge amount of work that is required to do something like that, and I did volunteer to be an editor to help, I just hope it is something that can be done soon.
That does bring up the question about the DMOZ replicated sites. Ihave heard from more than one source that the DMOZ data has not been updated on all of the DMOZ mirror sites since Septmeber. If that is in fact the case, removing all of the lead generation sites will have no real effect until that problem is addressed. Can you comment on this problem? Or is it just speculation?

You are correct that there has been no new RDF for downstream directories to download, since September. However, even if the RDF did return to the old weekly update schedule, we still can't force any downstream user to actually take a copy of it. What any downstream data user does with the RDF file is their business, just as long as the correct attribution is given for the data source. Google used to take a copy towards the end of the month, but some other sites still have a copy that is two or three years old that has never been updated by that user.

Your facts are incorrect. I never asked to have anyone reviewed.I was asked by Motsa for a list of the sites which if you look at the thread, you will see someone else posted them.Did I miss something about a "grandfather" clause relative to DMOZ guidelines?I may never get my site in but it is discrimnatory if there are "like" sites in now and others aren't allowed. That's what discrimination is! I do not intend this to get personal. I am a small business person trying for a level playing field.

As I pointed out to you privately and as others pointed out in this thread, the matter has been/is being discussed. What the ultimate result of that will be and how long that discussion might take is something we can't say. So, continually asking for an update isn't going to serve any purpose. Just leave it be for now.

As motsa has mentioned, the issue regarding lead generation sites is under discussion and will be resolved, but I would like to address a few issues here.

>>>I contacted the editor of the category but was told I was a spammer<<<

It would be impossible to establish which editor or which category you are referring to, due to the number of cats to which submissions were made. However, this thread seems to have focused on a category that I assist in editing so I would like to provide clarification. I did not respond to your inquiries or the inquiry from your site developer by calling you a "spammer", after looking at the submission record I did not reply to the inquiries at all.

>>>I have made an abuse request with the DMOZ, but have not heard anything about it.<<<

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. Unable to achieve the desired results, you began contacting metas. I have edited quietly for years, but I am almost positive that the recent changes to my editing privelages were a direct result of your having drawn the attention of meta editors to this issue.

Edits made prior to changes in ODP editing practices does not constitute abuse and dismantling a category or deleting published sites prior to a potential change to editing guidelines would not be appropriate unless an appropriate internal discussion has taken place. The issue of this and related categories will be resolved as soon as the internal discussion is complete.

It is possible that your concerns are self serving and driven by your desire to either obtain listings or get your competitors deleted, to the point where you have lost your objectivity regarding the ODP. The ODP undergoes constant changes (in spite of the RDF issue), implementing these changes is rarely an overnight process and it is important that there is clarity on an issue to prevent inappropriate or undesired changes.

>> I have edited quietly for years, but I am almost positive that the recent changes to my editing privelages were a direct result of your having drawn the attention of meta editors to this issue. <<

For those of you who panicked and wondered what exactly was meant by this statement (I did!), elwoodsharp received a "promotion" in the ODP late last year.

Mr. Sharp.I tried contacting you many times just to explain that the submissions were done improperly due to being a novice and having limited knowledge.However,I hope you could put yourself in place of a beginner and assume that with the extraordinary importance of being listed in the DMOZ;the frustration experienced by someone that doesn't have the knowledge that you obviously retain regarding these matters.Without some sort or contact or response how is someone to know first if they have done something wrong or improperly.Had you responded to my emails trying to explain the circumstances you would have clearly seen that I had no intent whatsoever to not comply with the rules.
As to your other comments, I never have asked to have anyone removed from any category.Motsa simply replied to a post and SOMEONE else joined in and asked to have the category reviewed since there were multiple sites listed already that perform the exact type of service that we do. Any comments regarding this category were sent privately to Motsa.If you read the posts above you will see that someone actually listed the other sites. I would never do that.I feel that these issues could have been handled by the Editor who requested the info.It is quite clear that all editors are overworked and under appreciated as I continue to learn about how the DMOZ works.
The only point that I was trying make was that if there were in fact other sites that provide a similar service that we should be given equal consideration.
Since you have taken the time to look at this post, I want to make sure just in case you never received my emails months ago: That I am sincerely sorry for the lack of understanding and knowledge that I had back then.Also I truely had NO intent of not following the rules.I assure you that it was only because I didn't know any better at the time. I do now and I hope you will accept my apologies for any inconviences that I have caused you or any other DMOZ member.
Tim Parker

I would like to thank all of the editors that have commented on this situation. I understand the DMOZ has a major problem on it’s hands right now, with the RDF problem, and taking time to answer the questions of a few lead generators is appreciated (by me at least).

Elwoodsharp has combined comments from my posts and that of natim in his response. I would love to respond, but obviously this is not bringing forth any visible change.

elwoodsharp if your editing status has been changed, placing the blame on this thread is not fair. Placing the blame on questions that have been asked by me or others is also not fair.
The category in question contains many sites that are not inline with the current guidelines. Even after you changed the guidelines and removed a few sites, the fact that most of the sites listed are not inline with the guidelines did not change.

I feel that all my questions have been valid. At this point I understand the DMOZ’s stance that lead generation sites will not be included in the directory. Obviously I do not agree with that stance, but provided it is applied to all other lead generation sites I would not have cause to comment further.
However this has not happened. The category is still filled with obvious lead generation sites. I would ask you what would you do in my shoes? I have tried to speak with you via email to get clarification about changes you made, but you denied to comment further. I sent email to the DMOZ staff, but met with no response. Outside of this forum I have gotten no answers when trying to follow normal procedure. So again I ask, what would you do?

Hopefully either you or another editor will take the time to look at the sites in that category, and listed above, and remove the lead generation sites. At this time it will mean nothing for my business as the RDF problem will keep any changes from having an real effect, but it will finally put this issue to bed. Then I can provide that same editor with the countless credit card, and mortgage lead generation sites that are also to be found in the ODP.

>>>elwoodsharp if your editing status has been changed, placing the blame on this thread is not fair. Placing the blame on questions that have been asked by me or others is also not fair. <<<

I guess you didn't read beebware's reply before making your post.

Several days after you (initially) contacted a meta (the first one) about this, I was surprised to see I had been granted (unrequested) privelages in a similar category. Days later I was surprised again when I was granted editall privelages. I am certain that I was promoted after my editing history was scrutinized as a result of your contacting meta editors. This wouldn't necessarily mean they weren't going to discuss and address your concerns regarding this specific category, just that they recognized the issue was not my editing.

>>>The category in question contains many sites that are not inline with the current guidelines.<<<

While a brief mention is made regarding lead generation sites, current guidelines do not address this - http://dmoz.org/guidelines/

>>>I have tried to speak with you via email to get clarification about changes you made, but you denied to comment further.<<<

You asked advice that was not appropriate for an editor to provide to a submitter. If your biz is legit, why would you need to ask an editor what you need to do to establish this fact? Either you can or you can't. When I asked you to submit your url for evaluation, you indicated you would , but didn't submit it or provide the url (I discovered your url later as a result of posts you made in another forum). I informed you that an ongoing and open line of communication between a submitter and an editor is inappropriate (IMHO), decided that further communication would be unproductive, saw no reason to drag it out, so I cut it off.

Also, in http://www.searchengineforums.com/searchengine.forums/action::thread/thread::892/forum::Forum31/ you wrote:

>>>I am looking for advice. Should I submit to the wrong area, then complain if I am held to the rules while others aren't. Or, should I just submit to the correct area, knowing that my traffic numbers will be off.(I had left the other company because I could no longer be party to all the spamming...so I want to do the right thing...but I need the traffic.)<<<

While you didn't say which company, I would have to be clueless to not figure it out (e.g. the anonymous hotmail messages asking for certain sites to be deleted, email from your old company, etc.).

Given all this, PLUS the knowledge that you were involved with the bulk of the spam submitted to this category, how responsive did you expect me to be?

>>>I would ask you what would you do in my shoes? I have tried to speak with you via email to get clarification about changes you made, but you denied to comment further. I sent email to the DMOZ staff, but met with no response. Outside of this forum I have gotten no answers when trying to follow normal procedure. So again I ask, what would you do?<<<

You asked the same question twice in the same short paragraph (above). This redundancy reflects how you have elected to handle this entire issue.

I would show some respect for the ODP editing community, start a thread, ask my questions, state my concerns, invite meta editors to participate in the thread, make my case, email staff and accept the outcome.

I wouldn't make post after post in thread after thread (in this forum and others), contact meta after meta in a quest to find someone, anyone, who will agree with me and immediately do what I wanted.

Meta A doesn't agree? Move on to meta B. No luck? Try meta C, D, E, etc. You have made your concerns very clear, but frankly I find the approach of "ask as many meta editors as you need until you find one who agrees with you" disrespectful. Did you share with motsa the other meta editors that you communicated with so that he could check with them and perhaps save a little time?

This issue is being addressed, when clarification has been reached, I assure you it will be handled asap, alright?

(PS - Is your 'sockmonkey' handle a result of one of your competitors having acquired the pets.com sock puppet which they use on their site and in TV ads?)

I will chime in as I find myself in an eerily similar situation.

With apologies to natim, who stated that he/she is a novice and could be excused such "mistakes" <img src="/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> , I have to first of all note that I only submitted my site twice, and the first time it was actually listed before a meta removed it.

Also, and I think that this is what drives me absolutely crazy, the site in question contains close to 100 unique pages that took several months of effort by three people to research and optimize.

Those are all pages that an editor could review, and probably learn something from, before he/she decided to nix the submission. This should be the only criteria used to decide whether a site is worthy of inclusion.

But alas, it did not happen. The site was disallowed in ODP because of an ad in the center of the page.

What would happen if all sites containing ads were to be taken out of the directory?

&gt;&gt;&gt;I will chime in as I find myself in an eerily similar situation. &lt;&lt;&lt;

Editor gaetano, I have a tough time seeing the similarities between your situation and the situations of netjim and sockpuppet.

Sites submitted to different topical trees must meet different criteria, you may be better off starting a new thread if you wish to discuss this (I don't know if you have already/ever started one).

Also, did you know that editors can request to have their member status changed to "editor" in the Members Lounge?

I have tried to respond to the elwoodsharp post for the past hour. I had made the mistake in my last post of editing it, and ended up repeating myself. elwoodsharp is a harsh editor, he caught me repeating myself right away. The 10 lead generation sites in the category that is not supposed to include lead generation sites, that he misses. But don't repeat yourself.

I wish another editor would review the sites and give there opinion. That would end this once and for all.

Aside from that. I did post in another forum, that lead me here. I did ask four editors here what they thought about my abuse case, that is where I learned that lead generation sites are outlawed. I did rise questions, and will continue to do so in a very major way, when I see something that is neither right nor fair.

Did I work for lead generation company(ies) in the past. Have I helped build a site or sites? Yes. So I know what I am talking about when I say the cat is filled with lead generation sites.

Did I show disrespect for the DMOZ and it's editors. I don;t think so, unless asking questions is a show of disrepect. Then I am guilty.
Did I not submit my site to the cat in question after posting that I would. Yes. Why? It doesn't belong there, it's a lead generation site.

Sockmonkey is a small monkey doll made from a sock, and has nothing to do with BAR NONE, a lead generaton company that acquired te Pets.com dog. And is currently listed in the cat in question.

I sent elwoodsharp email from my personal hotmail account, of which I do not want to give the address out here, but no other emails. I have not sent anonymous emails or emails from any former company. And is anyone else weirded out by some of those statements, and the fact that he knew where I was posting questions about him, but has only made 5 posts here himself. I supposed not.

For fear of repeating myself, would another editor please look at the sites listed. You will plainly see them for what they are.

Elwoodsharpe wrote:

Editor gaetano, I have a tough time seeing the similarities between your situation and the situations of netjim and sockpuppet.

Click to expand...

Well, I thought that having submitted an auto insurance site that was rejected because it was called a "lead generating site", like natim's auto loans sites, made it somewhat similar situation. Although frankly, I feel like my case has merit, though that's just my (obvious) opinion.

And this:

Also, did you know that editors can request to have their member status changed to "editor" in the Members Lounge?

Click to expand...

No I did not - I will do that. Please, don't think that I was trying to hide my editor status - I purposefully used my editor name as the handle for this forum.


I'm trying to go through channels, and have this issue resolved by ODP guidelines. After respectfully inquiring where to post about my problems inside the Dmoz editor's forum I was directed here, so here I am <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

you may be better off starting a new thread if you wish to discuss this

Click to expand...

When you have a moment: this is the thread I started re my problem

&gt;&gt;&gt;elwoodsharp is a harsh editor, he caught me repeating myself right away. The 10 lead generation sites in the category that is not supposed to include lead generation sites, that he misses. But don't repeat yourself.

I wish another editor would review the sites and give their opinion. That would end this once and for all.&lt;&lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;For fear of repeating myself, would another editor please look at the sites listed. You will plainly see them for what they are.&lt;&lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Did I show disrespect for the DMOZ and it's editors. I don;t think so, unless asking questions is a show of disrepect. Then I am guilty.&lt;&lt;&lt;

This issue is under discussion. However, you already know that, you have been informed of this several times in this thread, other threads and privately, yet you continue to repeat the same questions, make the same demands, contact meta after meta and ignore anything that anyone writes that is not what you want to hear. I find this disrespectful, if you cannot see why, I don't know how to explain it.

&gt;&gt;&gt;And is anyone else weirded out by some of those statements, and the fact that he knew where I was posting questions about him, but has only made 5 posts here himself. I supposed not.&lt;&lt;&lt;

I don't think it weird, after following what you have written here and elsewhere for two months, I grew tired of it and decided to respond.

&gt;&gt;&gt;I sent elwoodsharp email from my personal hotmail account, of which I do not want to give the address out here, but no other emails. I have not sent anonymous emails or emails from any former company.&lt;&lt;&lt;

I didn't say nor did I think you sent the email from your former employer. Given the two month campaign you have waged, are you really surprised that I formed an opinion regarding who sent the anonymous email asking that site(s) be removed?

Gaetano,

&gt;&gt;&gt;Well, I thought that having submitted an auto insurance site that was rejected because it was called a "lead generating site", like natim's auto loans sites, made it somewhat similar situation.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Check the notes, "lead generating site" was never given as a reason that the site was removed/rejected. Also, remember that I added it, I didn't delete it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Good luck with your thread, I will be paying attention. I didn't think you really wanted to attach your site to this thread.

I personally checked the sites in the category in question. I deleted one.

This thread has reached the end of it's usefulness. When the new guidelines are posted regarding Lead Generator sites, a notice will be posted here.