Semi-hypothetical question:

SEMI-HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO:

1. A small regional subcategory on ODP has no designated editor. Submissions to that category take long time to be reviewed, but everyone gets a fair shot.

2. The category receives an editor. The same day the editor adds one new entry to the category. Second day, the editor, edits description of the newly added site.

3. No activity since in two weeks.


ANALYSIS OF SEMI-HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO:

You are a new editor who gets his own category. You are excited about this new activity and want do some editing! There are not many submissions, given highly specific nature of the category, but there is at least 2 (up to a dozen) of them awaiting review. You check out a few, but approve one only. Why?

The site you approved is the latest addition in this "industry" and had come on the market about 1/2 year later, after everyone else. The site basically copied the concept up to the color scheme and some wording of other sites. Now, lack of content then definitely cannot be the reason for not adding anyone else to the category, right? Then what is?

Quite logical to suggest that the new editor is affiliated with the newly added site and the sole reason of becoming an editor was to add that site and he/she will never add a direct competitor to the category.

THE SEMI-HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION:
So the semi-hypothetical question to the semi-hypothetical scenario is: what can be done?

Note: No need to list official reasons why the editor chose to deny other sites - this is not the question and anyone who's been to this forum more than once has seen all of them. I will 100% accept the anser "nothing" and just live with it. Life was much easier before DMOZ came into it anyway

The answer to the semi-hypothetical question could, hypotheticallly, be a very very long one that can go off in directions all over the place.

What the semi-hypothetical question appears to relate to is the 'possibility' of editor abuse. In which case editor abuse is dealt with on a very serious level and every report is investigated and given the necessary attention.

If you have a specific event that you wish to report then please please do so. We welcome and would be grateful for your report and you could be assured that it will be investigated by a Meta asap!

I am afraid that it is hard to give a black and white answer in any event however a hypothetical question is even harder.

Any possible abuse reports can be reported at http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

Leer, thank you for your feedback.

I used the term "semi-hypothetical" in more of sarcastic manner, because the facts that I presented are more of assumptions, based on the changes I had observed in the category.

Since the new editor has been enforce only for two weeks, facts are scarce.
The only pure fact at this moment is that he/she had visited my site and did not list it (this I know from my stats). I can't inquire about my submission status for another 2 months (you know, the 6 month rule) and even if I did, the most likely answer will be "lack of content", which is absurd considering what I have said in my original post. I doubt anyone in their right mind would say "I denied you a listing, because you are damaging my business

So if I need facts to ask for investigation, I doubt I will ever have them, unless the new editor deletes listings for his other competitors who had been listed prior to his/her becoming the editor. But I doubt that he/she would do something that obvious.

So the short version of my "semi-hypothetical" question is just how much of a reason I have to have to ask for investigation.

If this post is in a wrong forum, would you please forward it to the appropriate forum category. Thanks again.

I can't inquire about my submission status for another 2 months (you know, the 6 month rule)

Click to expand...

Unless you inquired using another ID, it doesn't appear you've actually ever asked for a status on your site suggestion which means you've misread our forum guidelines which state you can make your initial inquiry 1 month after last suggestion, not 6 months.

and even if I did, the most likely answer will be "lack of content", which is absurd considering what I have said in my original post. I doubt anyone in their right mind would say "I denied you a listing, because you are damaging my business

Click to expand...

If you're already anticipating that you'll be told "lack of content", you must already have some idea that your site doesn't quite meet our criteria for listing. BTW your chances of having your inquiry here answered by the person who reviewed your site (if it was indeed reviewed) are slim to none.

So the short version of my "semi-hypothetical" question is just how much of a reason I have to have to ask for investigation.

Click to expand...

Without you having even asked for a status of your suggestion, more than you have. Again, we can't really go far on "semi-hypothetical" with no specifics.

Hi and thanks again for your input.

1. I have previously inquired about status update. Since it was about 4 months ago, I misplaced sign in information and had to create a different log. So, no, I have not misread the guidelines.

2. In all honesty, as possibly detached from the fact that I developed the service, I believe it is useful and offers valuable content. You can try reverse psychology on 15-year olds

The reason I anticipate "lack of content" reply is because, I feel I am being kept out of the directory. "Lack of content", frequently seen on this forum, is a personal opinion of the editor, which (1) doesn't have to be justified, and (2) therefore cannot be argued. So it's the easiest way to keep someone out, if need be.

3. No need to elaborate on the third comment, as I think I have explained everything above.

I'd appreciate more specific comments as to what can serve as grounds for requesting an investigation? In other words, what are the signs of editor abuse?

I just don't want to waste ODP staff time nor my own with futile attempts to investigate something that can't be investigated. Thank you.

Since the new editor has been enforce only for two weeks, facts are scarce.
The only pure fact at this moment is that he/she had visited my site and did not list it (this I know from my stats).

Click to expand...

Actually, not even that is a fact - you can't know which editor looked at the site - though it's probably likely that it was the new editor. Speaking as a senior editor, yes, many new editors start by adding their own site. Most go on to add and edit other sites as well, and then it's not a problem how they choose to begin. A new editor has a wealth of information to read and internalize, and for many it's pretty intimidating at first. (I know it was to me.) It might feel safer to start with a site you know intimately.

In addition, you can't know what the new editor has done that isn't visible in the public category. S/he may have gone through thirty unreviewed sites, removed those who were unlistable and sent the others to better categories, while saving the listable ones for later. That you have recorded a hit from the ODP means that something is happening; if a new editor is only intrested in listing his or her own site, they often don't even bother with the rest of the unreviewed sites, but time out quietly after a few months. (This is not a good situation and we do try and prevent it from happening, but it can't be prevented completely. Two weeks after a new editor has been accepted is way too early to say if it is likely to happen in this case, though.)

Hi Nea and thank you for the information.

I understand your point completely. In order to make conclusive judgements about this situation, I will have to give it time.

However, as much as I hate to, I have a feeling it is going to be the latter situation you described, whereby the editor is only interested in adding their own site. The question is whether he/she is going to be passive or active about this issue, meaning whether they are going to neglect editing altogether (passive) or continue editing and just keep out the competition (active).

Unfortunately, I will only find out either in 2 months (when I can request status check on my submission again) or in 4 months (after this editor has been suspended for 4 month inactivity period).

Based on the above, I can suggest two ways this is going to develop:

1. best case scenario: I get neglected/denied by this editor, the editor gets suspended, I re-submit the site, I get reviewed by another editor whenever it is my turn. Since I had waited for 4 months just to have a look taken at my site, I would estimate this process to take up 4 months(suspension) + 4 months(reviewing) = 8 months (total) from today.

2. Worse case: the editor edits the category, adds other related sites, but keeps his direct competitors (such as myself) out. In this case I should just forget about this idea altogether.

What do you think? Is my forecast fairly accurate?

What do you think? Is my forecast fairly accurate?

Click to expand...

No.

It is, however, wildly imaginative. No editor can keep a site out of the directory by ignoring it, since more than 200 editors can edit anywhere in the directory.

Case in point, in one of the two states where I have top-level permissions, I am about 70% of the way through a top-to-bottom review of every single unlisted site. Thus, no editor could be doing what you are imagining.

My advice: give it a rest.

Spectregunner,

I seriously doubt that there are other editors reviewing this category. Since it wasn't receiving much attention before it had a designated editor, I doubt top-level editors will be looking at it now that it has one. I also happened to mention that this is a regional category - regional as in "in language that most of you don't speak". So I do not think the "200 editors" comment applies in this case.

Besides, if you truly believe that the system is absolutely foolproof and no single editor can mishandle a category, why are there confirmed cases of editor abuse? … or is it a conspiracy among 200 editors, ha ha

So, now that we got that out of the way, would you please tone it down a bit and tell me what makes my assumptions so “wildly imaginative” in your eyes?

OK, look...you've been given a number of answers to your hypothetical question. And you've been given a link to our abuse reporting system. Either report it or don't.

This discussion, having gone long past its usefulness, is done.