Am I really a spammer?

[MotorMouse]

Now I must tread carefully here because if I say the wrong thing I know the 'mods' will delete this thread quicker than you can say 'spam'.

 

Anyway I'm not a vigilante but a serious Accountant with good business intentions - so when I tried (and failed) to list my online business a few months back, I was horrified to read the 'Reviewer Comments' below.

 

Is there no possible way to get feedback from such a situation? How can the ODP remain objective with comments below?

 

Can I add for the record I really am not a spammer and frankly would make a jolly good editor for the category I tried (and failed) to edit.

 

PS Who moderates the moderators?

 

 

 

 

Reviewer Comments:

 

You are associated with websites that were spamming us a few years ago in defiance of our submission guidelines at http://www.dmoz.org/add.html. We think you'd have trouble following our considerably more complex editor guidelines.

 

Please don't apply again.

[jimnoble]

If you'd like to report abuse, by all means visit the category that you requested, click on the report abuse/spam link at the top of the page and follow your nose. Everything is logged here so we should be able to sort out the truth of the matter - if we haven't done so already.

[hutcheson]

The circumstances triggering such a comment must have been something like this:

 

[several years ago] a group of "related sites" were "aggressively suggested" to the Open Directory. (The note doesn't say that you had actively participated in those actions.)

 

Apparently, although not mentioned in the note, you suggested "your site" at some point. (There wouldn't have been a response to this action from the ODP--all that happens is the suggestion goes into a pool that editors can search for sites.)

 

[Possibly at the same time as you suggested your site] you also filled out the application to be a volunteer editor. (That application has a place to list websites you're "affiliated with." And it does get a response. Part of the response might be a comment about whether another application would be welcome. Sometimes the answer is definitely "yes", and many editors have been accepted after several failed applications.)

 

Finally, someone reviewed the application, reviewed your declared affiliations (and possibly researched other affiliations.) They noticed a connection between your affiliations (possibly undeclared ones) and the sites that had been suggested in defiance of the ODP submittal policies. And the reaction was "Oh, THOSE sites. No, we don't want to ever have anything to do with the people behind THEM."

 

Hence, the response.

[gloria]

First, I did not review your application. But the meta or catmod who did, would not make that statement unless they were very, very sure about its validity. Most people view spammers as those who send the junk that they find in their email inbox. ODP editors also view spammers as those who over-suggest their site. We take spamming very seriously because it costs thousand of editor hours to clean it up.

 

Being an accountant is no barrier to being a spammer. I primarily work in the Health categories, and I've seen physicians, dentists, chiropractors and attorneys who were spamming us.

[hutcheson]

What Gloria said.

 

We had an Amish spammer once--a concept that still makes my head spin.

[MotorMouse]

To spam or not to spam, that is the question!

 

First of all, thank you all for your comments, I know you volunteer so this is your time helping me.

 

The problem I have is my URL <URL removed> was purchased from someone who tried and failed with it. Now I've had it since 2004 and have tried to list the domain with ODP ever since with no luck.

 

I have been told I'm a spammer or associated with spamming. This is news to me and where is the proof?

 

Bottom line is I work in the motor industry which is very tough and frankly we / I need every break I can get before we close the web doors forever.

 

Do we need another failed Internet business or can someone help me please?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The circumstances triggering such a comment must have been something like this:

 

[several years ago] a group of "related sites" were "aggressively suggested" to the Open Directory. (The note doesn't say that you had actively participated in those actions.)

 

Apparently, although not mentioned in the note, you suggested "your site" at some point. (There wouldn't have been a response to this action from the ODP--all that happens is the suggestion goes into a pool that editors can search for sites.)

 

[Possibly at the same time as you suggested your site] you also filled out the application to be a volunteer editor. (That application has a place to list websites you're "affiliated with." And it does get a response. Part of the response might be a comment about whether another application would be welcome. Sometimes the answer is definitely "yes", and many editors have been accepted after several failed applications.)

 

Finally, someone reviewed the application, reviewed your declared affiliations (and possibly researched other affiliations.) They noticed a connection between your affiliations (possibly undeclared ones) and the sites that had been suggested in defiance of the ODP submittal policies. And the reaction was "Oh, THOSE sites. No, we don't want to ever have anything to do with the people behind THEM."

 

Hence, the response.

[jimnoble]

where is the proof?

 

You don't get to see our internal logs and records any more than we get to see your company accounts.

Do we need another failed Internet business or can someone help me please?

If you believe that the success or failure of your business depends upon the actions or inactions of a bunch of anonymous hobbyist volunteers, quit now. If you think I'm being harsh, ask your business advisors what they think.

[MotorMouse]

Companies House offer public viewing for ALL Limited and PLC UK companies

 

Actually UK company accounts are available for public inspection.

 

I don't think you are being fair with your answers. The ODP should have some form of Ombudsman who can decide if a person or company is a spammer, not an individual.

 

Ok I agree with the reliance on the Internet SEO for business success or failure is a bit lame on my part, but it does help in an economic crisis like the one we have now!

 

Now can I have some positive feedback to help my original question?

 

 

 

You don't get to see our internal logs and records any more than we get to see your company accounts.

 

If you believe that the success or failure of your business depends upon the actions or inactions of a bunch of anonymous hobbyist volunteers, quit now. If you think I'm being harsh, ask your business advisors what they think.

[jimnoble]

Now can I have some positive feedback to help my original question?

Since we don't discuss individual websites here, probably not.

 

You might not be familiar with current UK legislation on the information that UK businesses must provide on their websites. There's a good summary at http://www.out-law.com/page-431 . This includes the official company name and address and, if registered, the company registration number.

 

Also, you might like to check out whether or not your websites are listable by looking at our Site Selection Criteria

[pvgool]

To spam or not to spam, that is the question!

There is only 1 answer. Do not spam.

 

- suggest a site more than once = spam

- suggest a site to several categories = spam

- suggest mirrors of the site = spam

- suggested related sites = spam

 

Now answer the question for yourself (no need to post the answer): Am I a spammer?

[MotorMouse]

Jim you are a genius

 

Jim thanks for your help.

 

 

Since we don't discuss individual websites here, probably not.

 

You might not be familiar with current UK legislation on the information that UK businesses must provide on their websites. There's a good summary at http://www.out-law.com/page-431 . This includes the official company name and address and, if registered, the company registration number.

 

Also, you might like to check out whether or not your websites are listable by looking at our Site Selection Criteria

[MotorMouse]

No feedback from reporting the abuse

 

If you'd like to report abuse, by all means visit the category that you requested, click on the report abuse/spam link at the top of the page and follow your nose. Everything is logged here so we should be able to sort out the truth of the matter - if we haven't done so already.

 

Well I went through the process following your recommendation Jim but what I got back was not helpfull.

 

The bottom line is I wanted to list my domain and the report back from that was the domain was subject to spamming MANY YEARS AGO!

 

Now time has past (4 years) and the domain is black listed. So I thought about becoming an editor of said section because there hasn't been an editor for sometime and I thought because I know so much about the subject I'd be good. Also the listings on DMOZ are out of date and inaccurate!

 

So after 3 attempts and being rejected I feel rather demoralized and wondering if it's really worth it?

 

I also feel some of the replies are a little harsh and lack the human element - I know you all volunteer etc but some of the answers are a bit to the point and without care for the recipient. For example, what if someone is dyslexic and has problems with words? Can we discriminate against someone because of this?

 

Obviously I'm ranting a little here because of my frustration not getting my site listed then being rejected as an editor, but I can be sure the reply from the mods will not be sympathetic or get my site listed any quicker! But I might feel better ? ;-)

[jimnoble]

No feedback from reporting the abuse

You might not have liked it, but I see that feedback was indeed sent.

what if someone is dyslexic and has problems with words? Can we discriminate against someone because of this?

In an editorial role, of course we can. If they can't read or write fluently, how would you expect them to be able to evaluate websites and describe them fairly? You'll be suggesting that a blind taxi driver is OK next .

 

The bottom line is I wanted to list my domain

 

Indeed, but that's not a good motive to become an editor.

[hutcheson]

Sympathy is a good thing. I sympathize--deeply--with surfers who can't find information on the web because there are so many vapid made-for-advertising sites created by glib ignoramuses, so many empty prospective-visitor-created-content sites created by less-glib ignoramuses. And so I act: I volunteer to help find and categorize informative sites.

 

I sympathize--deeply--with the website owners who focus on serving their customers, not pushing their websites, who don't know about the ODP at all...or who follow the ODP submittal policies but seem to have been buried by the spammers. And so I act: I use many different ways to find those less-promoted websites.

 

I sympathize--deeply--with the editors who are constantly facing vicious accusations of corruption, by the same people who are incessantly trying to corrupt those editors. And so I strongly favor any possible dissuasion that can be applied to people who attempt to corrupt the editing process, and any possible obloquy that can be expressed of people who make false accusations (which includes accusations they can't know are true.)

 

If you shared those sympathies, you'd favor the death penalty, precisely because of your honest sympathies with honest people.

 

That's the human element....I suspect, on the whole, that you won't sympathize with it.