Site Approval Discrimination

Unless the owners of those sites have access to the editing logs, then they can't know for sure which editor removed their sites. Just because an editor is listed on a category page, it doesn't mean that they are the only person who can edit there. Anyone listed in a higher category can edit there too, along with 200ish editall+ editors.

If you've submitted an abuse report with a clear list of removed sites, and a clear list of sites you think the editor may have added for themselves and their friends, then the matter will be / have been investigated. If you can provide evidence linking the editor to the sites added, then this will make things easier for the investigator.

Remember though that it's an editors job to add new sites, and remove inappropriate sites -- so just seeing some added and some removed isn't necessarily a sign of abuse. It could well be that the sites that were removed were removed for legitimate reasons, and the sites you saw added were just the result of the editor going though the pool of suggested sites.

Unless the owners of those sites have access to the editing logs, then they can't know for sure which editor removed their sites.

That's important enough to be emphasized. And it's almost true. "Can't know for sure" really isn't the right phrase. Something like "don't have a clue" or "can't possibly hazard even a useful guess" would be more accurate. "are exhibiting evidence of paranoid monomania if they think they can guess" isn't always fair either: it might be projected malice or some other delusion.

It's always amazing to see what some people call "evidence". One alligator considered that an ODP editall had spent six years centered on one particular language in order to suddenly start deleting competitors of a sibling's retail shop. No matter that the sibling was a native of a country at the other end of the continent where a completely different branch language family dominated: All that mattered was the first letter of the family name, and one of the most common Christian (i.e. Greek-etymology) names on the continent.

Another alligator cited Google search results on generic terms, of all things, as if they were any indication of competition! -- as if Wikipedia were in competition with allposters.com because they both showed up in a search for "art"!

Those examples are from the extremely absurd end of the spectrum, but you'd be amazed how often someone says, "on some random but truly irrelevant statistic my site ranks higher than that site -- so how could that site have been listed first?

It's not always the same statistic: sometimes it's number of pages, sometimes it's domain name registration date, sometimes it's the date the site was first suggested, sometimes it's the color scheme of the site's Dreamweaver template, sometimes it's the number of site visitors, sometimes it's the Google rank on some arbitrary but uselessly generic search.

And there are what, five billion or so sites on the net? And if some editor CARED about that statistic, which nobody in his right mind would, how could he possibly get a list of all the world's websites and evaluate that statistic on each one? And if he couldn't care, and couldn't get the prioritized list if he did care, how on earth could he make sure the oldest-registered-domain, or the most attractive pastel background, or whatever, gets reviewed first?

OK, all of that is the kind of technical detail that makes some people's eyes glaze over. If you were summarizing for management, how would you do it?

With very few exceptions ("cooling"), If it's abuse for one editor to do something, it's abuse for any other editor to do it.

In other words, If it's really abuse, it doesn't matter who did it.

So skip the irrelevant details, like uninformed guesses about who the murderer is, and just show the police where you found the body.

Hi Folks,

I am back again. I found that the abusive editor named his site link using a keyword that I heard it's strickly prohibited by DMOZ. The keyword is the second most popular in my country. I think it's clearly a good proof.

It's the only one site on that category using keyword instead of site/blog's name.

If you believe that an editor is abusing the directory, please use the proper channels to report it. As already noted please visit http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ and submit a report with as much information as you can.

Please do not start any other threads on this forum about this topic.