Remove my site from dmoz.org listings

You miss a key point in your numbered list of the various aspects of this situation: that ODP is supposed to be a cooperative effort, and that (editors name removed) and other editors at ODP ignored their responsibility to make some effort to cooperate with someone who obviously knew something about the subject matter, and who had obviously made a sincere effort to organize a directory that no one was managing.

Click to expand...

Ummm, excuse me but did you make a cooperative effort to communicate your ideas before you decided to make changes that went against the guidelines? The path runs both ways. You get what you give. Apparently you gave no consideration to the guidelines or the hours other editors spent arranging and adding to that category. Why would you expect anything more than you were (are) willing to give?

Judging by your posts here and what you are trying to do with your own website shows me that you really only care about what you want and how you feel things should be. Throw logic to the wind and I want it my way or no way. If this is the attitude you had as an editor it is no wonder that you did not last. Honestly, it is like talking to a brick wall here.

I did not make a cooperative effort to coordinate with anyone before I made my changes because there was no one else volunteering to edit the Beowulf category at ODP. There were only a few links, and they were not very good ones. There was no one else for me to cooperate with.

You cannot be serious when you suggest that I want it my way or no way. My entire point here is that M***0 wanted it his way or no way. I did not defy anyone when I did my initial work. The Beowulf category was pretty sparse before I got to it. I did not insist that the directory be organized in the way I had done it. My entire point here is that no one contacted me before deleting my work. I have said repeatedly that there are many ways to set up a directory, and I would have been very happy to discuss my suggestions with someone. But there was no one to discuss them with before I started, and everyone ignored me after I was done.

And what can you possibly mean when you refer to me wanting to have my own way on my own website? Do you expect me to get input from other people when I organize my site? Do you expect me to organize my site according to someone else's conventions? Your statement makes no sense: you are obviously just trying to think of things to say that will hurt my feelings.

You people are all very anxious to depict me as some sort of fanatic. I have described what happend very clearly, but people here keep misrepresenting what I did, or what I intended to do. The fact is that I did a lot of work when no one else was interested in doing it, and no one thought to discuss anything with me before they decided to throw it all away.

This discussion is obviously raising some sensitive issues for people who have had to defend insensitive editors before. You are all aware of editors who left this project dissatisfied. When you organize this sort of project, and ignore people who don't like what is done to their work, then you have to expect complaints like mine. Rather than trying to paint me as a lunatic maybe you should put your efforts into making sure that these problems happen less often in the future.

In any large organization there are always some people who leave dissatisfied. Whether they are fired or quit. ODP is not any different. Are you saying just because there are disgruntled ex editors that ODP is bad?

You have a whole slew of editors talking to you now. I find it hard to believe you would have acted or reacted any differently then. Brick walls do not do well in the ODP.

Not really. I wasn't an editor then, and I don't know you nor do I know the other editor.

All I know is that you came to a forum and violated the forum terms of service, repeatedly, after being told not to, because YOU don't agree with the terms of service and don't think abiding by them would adequately express your emotions.

That doesn't set me up to view your complaint about your editing experience in a particularly favorable light. Why shouldn't I simply assume you did the same thing in the ODP that you did in this forum: show up, insist on doing things YOUR way, have a little fit when you didn't get to, call everyone else insensitive, and eventually get kicked off? (I don't make moderator decisions around here; but someone who persists in violating forum rules despite having been warned because he doesn't feel like obeying, is someone who will soon, and should soon, be banned from the forum.)

This entire conversation is a startling waste of time; if you want to make a rant site about the ODP, you don't need our permission, but you have it anyway. Go right ahead. Why bother to tell us? Did you really think we would try to make you stop?

I have removed the editor's name from my posts. So now which rules am I violating?

You know, all you had to do was say something like "We have made a note of the editor's name, so would you please remove it from your posts."

You have suggested that I am not being cooperative, and so you do not expect that I would have cooperated a few years ago. How do you know what would have happened a few years ago? The way to determine my reaction to how the directory should be organized would have been to discuss the issue with me rather than ignoring me.

This entire conversation is not a "startling waste of time." It raises legitimate issues: can a site owner ask to have his site removed from a dmoz.org directory, and if not then why not; and don't we all agree that we have to be sensitive to the efforts of category editors (especially new ones who know something about their subject matter) so that we don't scare people away unnecessarily.

Also, regarding "why bother to tell us," I did not make this post to tell you that I am going to block links from dmoz.org. I made this post to ask how to remove my site from a dmoz.org directory.

You didn't remove the editor's name until after my last post, Syd. The first time you were told to stop mentioning specific names in here, you ignored it. The second time, you refused, saying "You can complain about my mentioning <snip> by name, but he brought that on himself by being so insensitive in my dealings with him. He has to understand that his actions have consequences."

That constitutes coming here, ignoring a forum rule you didn't want to abide by, arguing that you were justified in ignoring the forum rule because it was the only way to punish somebody you do not like, and blaming your misbehavior on someone else who was not present.

Then you expect us to assume that you weren't behaving like that at all while you were an editor? It's as true on internet forums as it is in real life: first impressions do matter, and people will react to you based on the 'face' you put forward.

This seems to be drifting far beyond the scope of this forum, by the way: your questions have been answered (no we won't add or delete sites based solely on webmaster requests; yes it's quite fine for you to create an anti-ODP rant page if you would like to). Arguing about your removal as an editor three years ago is... well, I think that's explicitly against the TOS here too, actually, and there's certainly nothing to be gained from it. I'm sorry you didn't have a good experience as an editor; it doesn't sound like you and the ODP were well-suited for each other, and I wish you well in other, more free-form pursuits where you can do as you please without interference from others.

I was not removed as an editor, I resigned. When I said I was blocked from making changes, I meant that if I made any changes that the other editor didn't like, he simply restored the directory to how it was when he last changed it.

I agree that I should have paid more attention to your policy about editors' names when it was first mentioned. But I am curious about how you provide for accountability if no one gets to mention who it was who pissed them off.

Syd, sounds like you're an expert in your field. Me too.

As a new editor, I waited a while, read, learned and then laid out a plan to revamp my category to senior editors. I thought it was *brilliant*. They were less than thrilled.

In "my world," it made perfect sense. But the ODP is not my world - it's a collaborative effort and no editor owns a catgory. After much thought, disappointment and consideration, I realized they were *right.* Would another editor be able to step in were I to be unavailable? Following my suggestions would have made it highly unlikely...

Your site obviously has merit to be listed. Why not take your knowledge and build your own directory on the subject there - according to Syd's world. It's the perfect place. Having it listed in the ODP just makes it more likely that Syd's passion for Beowulf will be found by people who are also interested in the subject. Isn't that the goal of your site in the first place?

Camilla, your comments are thoughtful and sensible. I hope that in your experience as an editor someone took the time to explain to you why your design was not well suited for ODP, rather than simply discarding it and then ignoring you. In my own case I would have been glad to show my design to someone if it had been apparent to me who it was I should show it to, and how I could show it to them without actually making any changes.

I have in fact set up my own list of links -- and it's a much longer list than the current list at dmoz.org. My list is at http://www.jagular.com/beowulf/links.shtml

OK, let's try to summarise this thing here in the hopes of reaching some sort of conclusion of this discussion:

1) The ODP will not remove a listing for a site when the site owner (or someone who claims to be) requests it. The only time this will happen is for legal reasons, arbitrated by ODP staff

2) People have been wronged by editors in the past, and it will probably happen again. Some will leave, some will get their issues resolved. This makes it neither right nor acceptable, and, where proven to be the case, needs to be dealt with.

3) There are issues that come up where bad communication happens. Today in the ODP we would suggest that the editor who felt mistreated use the Editor Mediation tool, where such issues can be brought up and resolved. This did not exist three years ago. So in this regard corrective actions to establish a process have been made.

4) The ODP of three years ago isn't the ODP of today - many things have changed.

Now, once we cut away the emotions, here, are there any more points which really need to be discussed in this public forum?

I reiterate that I do not know the facts one way or another in this case, and am not going to get into them.

So, having said all that, what else, not covered by these points, which seem to have been discussed more than adequately, needs to be discussed in this issue?

In my own case I would have been glad to show my design to someone if it had been apparent to me who it was I should show it to, and how I could show it to them without actually making any changes.

Click to expand...

The fora available to editors provides the perfect spot to float new ideas and ask questions - with the added benefit of reading the vast (and I do mean vast) history of previous discussions.

The sense of awe at the wealth of knowledge and selfless commitment by previous editors is almost daunting. New editors now have many, many channels from which to request assistance. I'm sorry if they weren't apparent when you were an editor.

Thanks so much for sharing your link. Now I know where to get a copy of Beowulf for my Palm Pilot. I hope you will reconsider your position both about the ODP and the inclusion of your site in it.

Sorry, Alucard. Slow typist.

But I am curious about how you provide for accountability if no one gets to mention who it was who pissed them off.

Click to expand...

Clarifying what alucard aluded to - there is an editor mediation tool that can be used when a dispute arises between two editors. A non-involved meta will work to resolve the issue. However, before it gets to that point, editors are expected to have communicated directly with each other first and/or if the issue is an editing issue (as opposed to a personal issue) it should possibly be brought up for discussion in the forums.

>But I am curious about how you provide for accountability if no one gets to mention who it was who pissed them off.

You can't accuse someone of murder in these forums. Does that mean there is no accountability for murder any more? Or ... does it mean that IT IS A VIOLATION OF THIS FORUM'S RULES to make those accusations here?

In THIS forum, what we hold people accountable for is their behavior in THIS forum. Mentioning actions of specific editors is not allowed. For that matter, it is a violation of the ODP editing guidelines also, and editors who show contempt for other editor's confidentiality are removed.

Showing consideration for other editor's feelings is a much more nuanced area. It is easy to get one's feelings hurt by what is said in the forums or private communication. (And this makes the ODP different from what other kind of social interaction?) The question therefore is, how do you treat hurt feelings? Rinse with bile and wrap in septic rags, or do your own good work well, and outlive your enemies?

OK, I think this has dragged on more than long enough. Syd, your question regarding removing your site from the directory has been more than adequately answered.

Thread closed.