I don't have much experience with submitting to many sections DMOZ, but from my experience, there must be more than a small handful of your editors who are either: A) Acting with ulterior motives B) Not Very Bright C) Flat Out Lazy
With that being said, what does one do...? Yes, this is free resource, but nonetheless your goal is to position yourself be an open authority, and without any kind of resolution or oversight, how the hell to expect there to be a shred of accuracy or integrity when it is all said and done?
Here's my story. I have a PR5 site that has been around since 1997 with thousands of registered users. Our site is one of the top 3 Internet-wide in our niche. For many years we were listed in DMOZ. Then one day doing some checking on our presence I see we're not listed.
So I resubmit, no response, months later same thing, months later same thing. Hrmm... I've been doing this for the better part of two years being very patient.
So I was doing some searching, and I found a thread (not on this board either) with people corresponding with a DMOZ editor where they listed about 20 of 30 sites in my section and said they were all copies, that they were all all owned by 2 or 3 companies and they should be deleted. The person telling the editor this obviously was a competitor or someone with repoire acting on behalf of a competitor. Why? Because anyone with half a brain could see they were all different sites (from the many a sampled), layouts, platforms (servers, programming languages, methods), content, whois data, and class C blocks.
All of this makes sense as my section went from around 30 - 40 sites down to a dozen. Digging a bit more it is somewhat apparent that the editor of the section has a conflict of interest here. That, or your editors are taking people's word as gospel and wiping quality authorities out of your index without any due diligence.
So my question is, when you have an editor who is either corrupt, incompetent, or beyond lazy, is there any recourse that can be taken to report this for both the purposes of your benefit and mine?
PS- Another quick review of the section shows ridiculous sites with malformed/broken HTML and even parasite hosts that are no longer active.
Thank you.
TT
With that being said, what does one do...? Yes, this is free resource, but nonetheless your goal is to position yourself be an open authority, and without any kind of resolution or oversight, how the hell to expect there to be a shred of accuracy or integrity when it is all said and done?
Here's my story. I have a PR5 site that has been around since 1997 with thousands of registered users. Our site is one of the top 3 Internet-wide in our niche. For many years we were listed in DMOZ. Then one day doing some checking on our presence I see we're not listed.
So I resubmit, no response, months later same thing, months later same thing. Hrmm... I've been doing this for the better part of two years being very patient.
So I was doing some searching, and I found a thread (not on this board either) with people corresponding with a DMOZ editor where they listed about 20 of 30 sites in my section and said they were all copies, that they were all all owned by 2 or 3 companies and they should be deleted. The person telling the editor this obviously was a competitor or someone with repoire acting on behalf of a competitor. Why? Because anyone with half a brain could see they were all different sites (from the many a sampled), layouts, platforms (servers, programming languages, methods), content, whois data, and class C blocks.
All of this makes sense as my section went from around 30 - 40 sites down to a dozen. Digging a bit more it is somewhat apparent that the editor of the section has a conflict of interest here. That, or your editors are taking people's word as gospel and wiping quality authorities out of your index without any due diligence.
So my question is, when you have an editor who is either corrupt, incompetent, or beyond lazy, is there any recourse that can be taken to report this for both the purposes of your benefit and mine?
PS- Another quick review of the section shows ridiculous sites with malformed/broken HTML and even parasite hosts that are no longer active.
Thank you.
TT
.