who are editors accountable to?

Just whom keeps an eye on the editors and there sections? I have had my site rejected, well not actually rejected but deleted without reason from:
http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/London/Travel_and_Tourism/Accommodation/Guides_and_Directories/

Editors are accountable to other editors. If an editor (or a member of the public) see something wrong, it is investigated by other editors and if signs of abuse etc are shown, then senior editors (the "metas") do take action and the editor in question is removed.

However, if your site URL starts with 'miles' - then it wasn't removed for "no reason", it was removed because it was an affiliate site and those are not allowed by our guidelines.

If it wasn't that URL, let us know which one and we'll try (it isn't guaranteed) and tell you why it was removed. Sites are always removed for a specific reason - they are "dead" (404, domain hijacked etc), content has changed so it's no longer suitable, it's been discovered that they don't actually meet our guidelines (ie they were listed in error) etc etc.

Thanks for the reply. My comlaint wasnt that it was removed, its the other points. The sites in that section ARE affiliates. And both before and after the site was moved the editor had never not a single time replied to me. Again im not moaning that my site has been removed. Youre a free directory and can do what you want. But is it not the point to have the best cross section of sites? If you had no affiliate sutes in there then fine. But not only are they 98 percent affiliates, some no longer exsist...so you get th point? After i was listed i was removed, but you atill leave sites that are no longer in exsistence!!!!!!!!!!! Wheres the logic?

i have reported and still see sites that are a single page with TWO dmoz listings? Simply saying my site is an affiliate and not looking at whether it is better than the listed sites or of any use to someone looking at that section is crazy!

i ask you, how can a site returning a 404 be more appropriate to retain its listing than an active site?

I did get rid of one 404 site, and I've asked a few editors who are more familiar with the UK categories to take a look at this category.

Thank you. I ask no more than that.

>And both before and after the site was moved the editor had never not a single time replied to me.

I understand that this is unsatisfactory to _you_. But...it is the normal ODP practice. It is, in fact, what we _strongly_ recommend to new editors. And the circumstances which you describe are precisely those circumstances which compelled the normal practice.

Our reason is simple. The "Add URL" link is not (from our viewpoint) a way for you to impose
obligations on volunteer editors, and force them to help you. It's a way for you to volunteer to help the rest of us volunteers by finding sites we couldn't find (or hadn't found). The various communication channels are set up to support this kind of assistance.

Suppose that a submittal is (in the judgment of the editor) spam. Is that help? No, it's harassment. Does the editor have a responsibility to help someone pester the community? NO! Is it prudent to give out an e-mail address to an identified spammer? HARDLY! Does responding to a (true) spammer stop the spam? NO! It increases it! f communications about an inappropriate site are repeated often enough to get irritating, the meta-editors will take steps to -- respond? NO! stop the harassment? YES!

Now, the editor may have been mistaken in judging your site as spam. But it was not a mistake to act on that judgment!

Summary: you can talk to editors, you should generally expect them not to respond (although from our point of view, they should either act on your communication, or pass it to someone else to consider.)

If you need a response, these forums are a much safer way for the editors to respond, and a much more efficient way for submitters to find an editor who is willing to respond. If there is a real problem with an editor (which is a possibility, although not nearly so common as some people believe) the forum is a good way to get attention from other editors.

You still may not get satisfaction. But at least you'll have been dissatisfied by experts.

I guess the problem then was that my only previous experience was from the editor from the cat i originally submitted to when the site was in another form. Just to show i not here to moan i wil name her. Lesley Corti. She has been nothing but helpful, responsive and gives the feel of being passionate with her work. I thought that this was how editors were. So when the new editor never replied i thought this was simply being a little arrogant. You see i already had a listing. I was'nt trying to bully someone into listing me. The problem was the nature of my site had changed and rather than spam by asking for a second listing i actually told the new editor i was already listed but thought his cat would now be more appropriate. I simply expected a yes or no. I was already listed for the right city so if i was spamming i would have kept quiet and not brought attention to myself. I simply wondered if anyone looks to see how sections are being run, that was my basic point. Given the inconsistency in the reason for my site being dropped (in my peresonal view). I would also point out that i only knew of the forum because lesley suggested i have a look here. So, i guess i was simply spoiled by my first editor being a fantastic one!

Most editors will in fact try to be helpful when they get polite email, but it makes sense to be wary. Here's an excerpt from an email I recieved from an editor the other day:

"I have been having a problem with a person. This has been going on for sometime ... She has filled up my mailbox with some pretty strange rantings about "editors raking in millions" and "taking bribes". In the past 2 weeks alone she has emailed me over 30 times."

i concede this point. Its something that never occured to me. maybe the anwser would be some sort of internal email system where this type of contact could be filtered and the editors personal email address was never revealed.

Just to let you know I am currently working through the category, and have so far found a couple of sites that do not/no longer meet our guidelines. These have been removed.

Thank you for drawing our attention to this.

hi..thanks for letting me know that you were doing that....can i ask? are you saying some of the affiliate sites are ok if they meet certain criteria? because they are mostly affiliates as far as i can see....some disguise it better than others..but if you go the booking part...and click to book they usually give themselves away at this point by revealing the url of the program site in the status bar.. but i guess you already know that...!.

Affiliate sites are allowed as long as they:

[*] Offer unique content.
[*] The unique content offered heavily outweighs the amount of affiliate content.

just thought id mention....cause you already know my site..if you look at my city to airport car times chart, and also the two first stories in the "city latest" homepage section...can you find this anywhere else?

Just guessing that the answer is "no" and "yes", respectively, but even assuming an answer of "no-squared", that's IMO _way_ below what we'd call "_adequate_" unique content....and if you submitted sites or pages with no more unique content than that separately for as many as three or four cities, we'd DEFINITELY call it "lowballing spam".

not really sure about why you mentioned about 3 or 4 cities. i have the one site for the one city. I was born raised and bred in that city. I was a cabbie for 15 years in that city. I know my subject. I have never said that my site is head and shoulders above anyone else. What i did and still maintain is, the site contains more useful and genuine content than most sites in the section, and certainly not less. I accept that hell will freeze over before my site is allowed in. But this is the second mention of spamming. Let me say this again. My site, which still carries a taxi section, was listed for over a year in the city taxi section of dmoz. Ok, ? i was already listed. It was because i DIDNT want to spam that i asked for a move to a more appropriate section. When i asked the editor of the new group for an entry i told him i was already listed in another section. If i had any relationship to a spammer i would not have mentioned my listing and would not even have asked for a move and risk being dropped altogether. That is the point, my honesty has left me with no listing. the moral here is if you have a listing then honesty will get you nowhere. I cannot see why the sites in the new section are still there over and above me. Id be gratful if their unique content was pointed out. My real upset is this, i wasnt refused a listing, i was listed and then dropped over and above the others. But thanks for at least taking the time to address and listen to my moaning.

I probably should have phrased my remarks differently. I usually try very hard not to use the second personal pronoun and "spam" in the same sentence, so that I can address the general issue in the light of our editor experience. And, despite the personal pronoun, I really was thinking in the general, not the specific case.

We have seen, and continue to see, spammeisters who build cookie-cutter sites for one city after another, with a sentence or two of "local information", and deeplinks to lots and lots of profitable affiliate programs -- florists, hotel reservations, etc, etc, etc. Some of them at least show the deeplinks honestly. But more and more of these cyanobacteria, knowing they've well worn their welcome out, go to great lengths to conceal the nature of the site ownership and affiliate links. This is probably the single largest source of spam in the Regional categories. So, when experienced editors see a content-lite "city directory", they simply and automatically wonder which of the poisoned-cookie-cutter spammers it belongs to. A loss for people who are just beginning to build up a "fan site" for their hometown; a loss for surfers and directory builders.

Another way of putting it is that the spammers are systematically doing their dead-level best to destroy the value of the internet for everyone, and are certainly having more success at that than they could be at any task that requires room-temperature IQ or alley-cat morals.

okie dokie..i got to thinking afterwards that i guess you guys must get to be like cops..they see so much crime that anyone they meet thats innocent is first assumed guilty!....i take your points...as for the journey times chart i have..having evolved from a taxi site and still doing that...the most common question is how long will the journey take from one of the 5 airports to various parts of the city...everytime im asked i add that postcode to the chart...also not having a keyword domain would make me the worlds worst spammer dont you think?....i realise the problem you have with affiliates and sometimes i guess your job seems thankless ...a check of my backlinks would show im only linked from independent doamins..and one link from each..anyway i wont defend myself anymore...youre entitled to your veiw..and im always going to be biased...as i said..im only upset because i got a lot of traffic from dmoz...and simply because i drew attention to myself by asking for a move to a more appropriate section i now have no listing......no chance of being put back in the original section is there?..just thought id ask....seeya!!!!!!! <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

I've never understood why people keep coming on here and talking about their backlinks. As editors we're not interested in who might link to a specific site, but webmasters always seem to think that it'll be vitally important to us. One member even accused editors of lying when we said we weren't interested.

Let's put this to rest for anyone that might be following this thread:

We are not interested in backlinks in any way whatsoever.