How can we complain ? problems with editors

[annudora]

How can we write our complaints about editors. Some editors do not add the websites only because of personal problems with the webmasters or they behave discreationary. Where will we contact with ?

[nea]

Annudora,

 

Please read the information in http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5455 (and follow the link to http://research.dmoz.org/~gti96/ddp/03014/ which provides additional information - much of that is aimed primarily at other editors but I believe it can be useful in understanding what is and isn't abuse).

 

Once you've done that, if you still feel that you have proof of editorial abuse, please report it at http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ .

 

All abuse reports are read by a number of Meta editors. Other editors are not able to see them.

 

Thank you. :moz:

[critic009]

Though the reports might be read by a group of metas, unless those metas know about the particular category reported and its particpants (webmasters) and are further knowledgeable about the unethical practices some use, their reviews are meaningless.

 

I have seen numerous cases of clear abuse gone answered; seemingly because the level of abuse / slyness was over the editors/metas head!

[pvgool]

You provide all the evidence you have in the abuse report. The meta's are chosen to be meta's just because they are capable of investigating these reports (and a lot of other qualities they have). With the number of meta's we have there are always several of them that have experience in the catagories involved in the abuse.

 

PS. the fact that a suggested site is not reviewed yet is almost never a form of abuse

[shadow575]

Editors don't police sites for unethical behaviour, so listing a site for a business that is deemed unethical by its industry standards does not make the reviewing editor abusvive. What makes an editor abusive is clearly outlined in the Editor Abuse and Removal section of the guidelines.

[hutcheson]

We live in a world where one person's clear proof is another's insane hallucination. I work with someone, sane to all appearances, who believes that the 9/11 atrocity was masterminded by a U.S. University club that in order to provide a pretext to invade Afghanistan. There is at least one webmaster who is firmly convinced that I am personally controlling the Brazilian tourist industry. (Well, at least he WAS convinced, until he was found mysteriously dead, riddled with poisoned blowpipe needles. ) And so it goes. In any case, a perfect strangers "assurance of knowledge" is (and should be) worth nothing--nothing at all--without independently verifiable corroborating evidence.

[sford01]

Timescales for Abuse/Complaint Investigation

 

Can you please tell us the "normal" (difficult I know) timescales for abuse investigation?

 

For example - a small category - say under 50 listings, has an abuse ticket reported. Would one expect this to be under 6 months of the ticket being open and not yet reviewed? Over six months?

 

Is there a correlation between size of category and the amount of time elapsed before abuse complaints are investigated please?

 

Thanks

 

Simon

[shadow575]

Can you please tell us the "normal" (difficult I know) timescales for abuse investigation?

 

For example - a small category - say under 50 listings, has an abuse ticket reported. Would one expect this to be under 6 months of the ticket being open and not yet reviewed? Over six months?

 

Is there a correlation between size of category and the amount of time elapsed before abuse complaints are investigated please?

There is no timescale. It just takes as long as it takes to make a determination of abuse or not. That largely is dependent on the type and quality of the evidence.

There isn't really a correlation between the category size and time it takes to investigate. I suppose that a smaller category could mean less evidence to look at and may make abuse or lack there of more obvious, but that would not necessarily be true in all cases.

[sford01]

Thank you for the response.

 

I wonder is it possible to ascertain an average time for a report to remain in the "new" state (as in not yet investigated)?

 

Or is it rather that an abuse report remains new (not yet investigated) throughout the lifecycle of the report investigation until the investigation is itself complete?

 

Thanks

 

Simon

[motsa]

is it rather that an abuse report remains new (not yet investigated) throughout the lifecycle of the report investigation until the investigation is itself complete?

That can frequently happen. A status of new does not mean that no investigation has taken place.