Site removed for no reason

[jambam204]

Our site was removed for no apparent reason by the editor after being approved in 2010. He wrote in an email shortly after approval stating the following: "I listed your site based on its current merits of site content and for no other reason."

 

Our site has not been changed in any way shape or form since this time. I have been warned about editors controlling categories related to their own niche and it looks like that's exactly what is happening here.

 

Please re-list our website in the appropriate category.

 

Thank you for your time.

[motsa]

If your site *was* listed and now isn't, all that you can deduce is that *an* editor either unreviewed or deleted the site, not which editor did it. If the site was unreviewed (because it was unavailable when checked or belonged in a different category that the unreviewing editor had no access to), then it will eventually be re-reviewed. If the site was deleted (typically because the content changed since the site was listed or it was listed by mistake in the first place), then the only way to have someone take another look at it would be to resuggest it.

[jambam204]

If your site *was* listed and now isn't, all that you can deduce is that *an* editor either unreviewed or deleted the site, not which editor did it.

 

After being approved just 2 months ago why would someone re-review our site?

 

If the site was unreviewed (because it was unavailable when checked or belonged in a different category that the unreviewing editor had no access to), then it will eventually be re-reviewed.

 

It took me some time to track down the editor for this category because I was monitoring the category and he hadn't updated it in over a year... it was clear that he was no longer updating it. I finally tracked him down and here are some exact quotes from our conversations via email.

 

Me: What category are you responsible for?

Editor: I am responsible for editing the category that you are applying for.

 

Me: Do you have any suggestions? (on how to get listed)

Editor: Submit your request and let me know that you have done so. That is all.

 

Editor: I reviewed the site newly, in present time and have listed it in the ***CATEGORY NAME***. I listed the site based on its current merits of site content and for no other reason.

 

So after finally getting a hold of the appropriate editor, he reviews our site, approves it, and now has removed it again. Our website has not been changed in any way, shape or form from the time of approval. It's as if this editor is protecting his own niche.

 

If the site was deleted (typically because the content changed since the site was listed or it was listed by mistake in the first place), then the only way to have someone take another look at it would be to resuggest it.

 

The points above remove this as a possibility.

 

You may have noticed that I have not outed the editors name / category, I'm not trying to get him removed as an editor. I just want him to do his job. I would appreciate being re-listed or have the editor replaced with someone who is going to do their job. The situation would be a lot different had we not been approved just 2 months ago, but once approved I expect our listing to stick provided our site remains the same as it was upon approval, which it has.

 

What am I supposed to do?

[pvgool]

So after finally getting a hold of the appropriate editor, he reviews our site, approves it, and now has removed it again.

You can't know which editor has removed the website.

 

I just want him to do his job.

Reviewing suggested websites is not a obligatory part of the taks an editor can perform.

And it certainly is not a job.

 

The situation would be a lot different had we not been approved just 2 months ago, but once approved I expect our listing to stick provided our site remains the same as it was upon approval, which it has.

Your expectations are wrong.

Did you read the submission policies and instructions as requested when suggesting a website?

 

Editorial Discretion

Please recognize that making the ODP a useful resource requires us to exercise broad editorial discretion in determining the content and structure of the directory. That discretion extends (but is not limited) to what sites to include, where in the directory sites are placed, whether and when to include more than one link to a site, when deep linking is appropriate, and the content of the title and description of the site. In addition, a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion. You should not rely on any aspect of a site's inclusion in the directory. Please understand that an editor's exercise of discretion may not always treat all submissions equally. You may not always agree with our choices, but we hope you recognize that we do our best to make fair and reasonable decisions.

[jambam204]

You can't know which editor has removed the website.

 

Why do I feel like I'm being attacked? I am wondering why our website was removed if nothing was changed after being manually approved 2 months ago?

 

 

Reviewing suggested websites is not a obligatory part of the taks an editor can perform.

And it certainly is not a job.

 

An editor is not obligated to review website submissions? What is the purpose of a category editor then?

 

Your expectations are wrong.

Did you read the submission policies and instructions as requested when suggesting a website?

 

Your responses are coming off as very defensive. Do you understand my frustration with this whole situation? To have our listing removed suddenly after waiting patiently for a year is somewhat discouraging to say the least. Can you please help me understand why our website was removed? There has got to be a reason.

 

Thank you for your time with regards to this issue, it is much appreciated.

[jimnoble]

An editor is not obligated to review website submissions? What is the purpose of a category editor then?

To build and maintain our directory with eligible websites. There are probably around 2-300 million websites that we haven't yet evaluated and we see no reason to give priority to websites that have been suggested.

 

Sites are never added without good reason and never removed without good reason. If yours was 'suddenly removed' (we don't have a slow removal process), then it was indeed for a good reason.

 

a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion.

We refuse to discuss specific websites in this forum because such threads are a distraction from our purpose and often descend into arguments - as seems to be happening here.

 

If you're disappointed, please remember that an ODP listing hasn't had a traffic or financial benefit in years. My best suggestion is that you devote your energies to other means of promoting your website that might have.

 

Closing

[motsa]

(I've unlocked the topic. You've been polite and civil up to this point and I hope that will continue.)

 

The points above remove this as a possibility.

Actually, they don't. Editors make mistakes, sometimes because they're relatively new or inexperienced or because they may have misunderstood some aspect of our guidelines. If another editor comes across the mistake, they correct it, which can result in a previously listed site being moved or deleted.

 

You may have noticed that I have not outed the editors name / category, I'm not trying to get him removed as an editor.

We appreciate that you haven't named the editor or category. (You've saved us having to edit your post to remove that information, since it is against the TOS of this forum to discuss specific editors' actions.)

 

I just want him to do his job. I would appreciate being re-listed or have the editor replaced with someone who is going to do their job.

Editors are volunteers who are allowed to work where, when, and how often they choose to. An inactive editor is not taking up space that someone else could be using so there is no need (and no way) to "replace" an editor who is inactive. An editor's only real job is to contribute to the net growth and improvement of the directory, something they can do by going out and finding sites to list on their own, reviewing suggested sites, doing QA clean up, contributing to ontological discussions, or any of a number of other tasks. There is no single task that they are required to do.

 

The situation would be a lot different had we not been approved just 2 months ago, but once approved I expect our listing to stick provided our site remains the same as it was upon approval, which it has. What am I supposed to do?

I want to clarify something you wrote earlier, in your quote from your conversation with the editor. When the editor wrote that he was responsible for the category, he was not entirely accurate. No editor has sole responsibility for any category. All meta and editall editors can edit every category (as catmod and cateditall editors can edit all categories within a specific node). All editors who edit the parent levels above that particular category also can edit that category. So a couple of hundred people have the ability to edit in any given category. If they come across an edit that has been made by mistake, they can and do correct it. The fact that your site was initially approved doesn't mean it was listable in that category or in fact was listable at all. As I said, editors can and do make mistakes. As I wrote earlier, if your site was temporarily unavailable, it will be re-reviewed and relisted at some point. If it was determined that it was listed in the wrong category, then it has either been moved and listed in the right category or is awaiting re-review in the right category. If it was determined that the site wasn't listable at all and was initially listed by mistake, then it would have been deleted. Your only possible action at this point is to resuggest your site and wait for someone to re-review it.

 

Do you understand my frustration with this whole situation? To have our listing removed suddenly after waiting patiently for a year is somewhat discouraging to say the least. Can you please help me understand why our website was removed? There has got to be a reason.

As has already been said, we can't/won't discuss the specifics about any site here in this forum. You've been given a great deal of general feedback and advice here, though.

[microvb]

(Moved here from the old thread that you bumped because it helps if the story is in just one place.)

 

Hello again,

 

Not trolling, but just thought I would bring up this dead thread as even though time may have passed, the content remains the same.

 

It is now 2011. Several years now since my submission.

 

My site meets ALL of your guidelines. Is my submission even in anyones pool, perhaps sitting idle as a green number so that you may bump other sites in my category. Perhaps after this I may get listed, but pushed around to a "different" category more "suitable" (in reality a category deep in the tree with no specific relevance to my site or my companies business model).

 

Is no one able to edit the "Software" zone, according to the directory, there has been zero change since early 2009.

 

Also rumours abound about having to pay by sending money to an e-mail address of the editor -- the more you pay, the better your listing. I do not believe that this type of behavior is acceptable, morale, or befitting of an editor.

 

So, here we stand.

 

What EXACTLY must one do to get their site listed, given the following:

The category is chosen correctly

The site conforms to DMOZ's acceptance standards

The submission was sent once (but who knows what happened to my original submission in 2002 ------ NINE YEARS AGO!!!)

Time frame passed since submission --- 2 YEARS

 

Please advice/correct/edit w/e needs doing. Is my listing even in your Green queue of anyone ??

 

Thanks.

[microvb]

Perhaps there should be more accountability for those removing listings.

 

Listing removed: Put reason here

Date/Time it was removed

Removal co-authorized by (2 other NON-RELATED editors approvals -- random editors)

 

This should help to limit some of the corruption going on. I believe that once a listing is up, it should remain up and un-editable by any single person, or related to that editor (websites, affiliations, etc). This would make link removal slower, and more accountable.

 

There are also several DMOZ editors who request money for expediting the listing, and those who choose to ignore sites which are competition to their own business.

 

Just some food for thought, not that anyone is really listening. Only been trying to list my site which is <munged URL removed> for 9 YEARS!!!!!

 

I am beginning to think this whole directory is corrupt, dishonest, and not adhering to what the written conditions are! If you want to accept money to get listed, just be up-front about it.

[jimnoble]

Perhaps there should be more accountability for those removing listings.

Everything is logged here including who and when some editor delisted a website and his reasons why. Those logs are open for inspection by any editor.

 

For balance, your suggestion of requiring three editors to delist a website should also require three editors to agree to list it in the first place. That would cut down throughput by a factor of a lot more than three because we aren't all sitting in the same room in the same time zone. Not gonna happen.

[pvgool]

This should help to limit some of the corruption going on. I believe that once a listing is up, it should remain up and un-editable by any single person, or related to that editor (websites, affiliations, etc). This would make link removal slower, and more accountable.

We do not agree. And so did you, when you suggested your website you has to acknowledge that you agreed with the DMOZ guidelines. "a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion"

 

There are also several DMOZ editors who request money for expediting the listing, and those who choose to ignore sites which are competition to their own business.

When you have prove of such abuse please file an abuse report. DMOZ does not accept such abuse and will take actions (removal of both editor and websites)

 

What EXACTLY must one do to get their site listed, given the following:

The category is chosen correctly

The site conforms to DMOZ's acceptance standards

The submission was sent once (but who knows what happened to my original submission in 2002 ------ NINE YEARS AGO!!!)

Time frame passed since submission --- 2 YEARS

You do not have to do anything.

The only thing you can be sure of is that the suggestion from 2002 has been lost during the DMOZ crash in 2006. Unless it was already reviewed before.

 

Please advice/correct/edit w/e needs doing. Is my listing even in your Green queue of anyone ??

We do not know. And also do not care. Reviewing suggested website is not something that editors must do. They can review those suggestions but they also can get websites to be listed form other sources. This freedom is intentional.

[microvb]

We do not agree. And so did you, when you suggested your website you has to acknowledge that you agreed with the DMOZ guidelines. "a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time at our sole discretion"

 

 

When you have prove of such abuse please file an abuse report. DMOZ does not accept such abuse and will take actions (removal of both editor and websites)

 

 

You do not have to do anything.

The only thing you can be sure of is that the suggestion from 2002 has been lost during the DMOZ crash in 2006. Unless it was already reviewed before.

 

 

We do not know. And also do not care. Reviewing suggested website is not something that editors must do. They can review those suggestions but they also can get websites to be listed form other sources. This freedom is intentional.

 

So, essentially you are saying that editors (nice language btw : "You do not have to do anything."), can mess with peoples listings at their "sole discretion", and that they do not need to review your site (strange, how else would you determine if the site is "spammy").

 

Just looking through some of the garbage that is accepted, the developers (who are also editors at DMOZ), did a really poor job of, i think is more than sufficient evidence of tampering. USE YOUR LOGS TO SEE FOR YOURSELF!!

 

Regardless, this listing service may have been something wonderful, but has since turned to YASL (Yet another SPAM listing).

 

Have fun when Google/MSN/Yahoo move on to a less corrupt source of link data.

 

Your problem is that you only "CARE" about lining your own pockets through back-end deals of site developers, and really have no regulation, nor the want for any accountability (public or otherwise).

 

The internet is littered with disgust and plenty of examples on what you have "accepted", and what was "rejected".

 

I understand that this project WAS initially designed to be edited like WikiPedia, but has since been corrupted and only those who pay, or know someone get a listing --- Show a list of their PayPal account transactions, and prove me wrong -- I DARE YOU!!

 

Cheers.

[microvb]

I guess the best option is to correlate with AdBlock plus a complete list of all your sites to BLOCK!

[motsa]

Also rumours abound about having to pay by sending money to an e-mail address of the editor -- the more you pay, the better your listing. I do not believe that this type of behavior is acceptable, morale, or befitting of an editor.

There are also several DMOZ editors who request money for expediting the listing, and those who choose to ignore sites which are competition to their own business.

If you have any evidence of any of that, you are encouraged to either submit an abuse report as pvgool mentioned, or you can send me a PM here with the details. We take allegations of editorial abuse very seriously, but we can't investigate or deal with what we don't know about. Unfortunately, we can't do a whole lot if all you have are rumours with no specific information so I hope you have more details than that.

 

I am beginning to think this whole directory is corrupt, dishonest, and not adhering to what the written conditions are! If you want to accept money to get listed, just be up-front about it.

Offering and/or accepting money for a listing is considered abuse. Submission to and listing in the directory is free.

 

I believe that once a listing is up, it should remain up and un-editable by any single person, or related to that editor (websites, affiliations, etc). This would make link removal slower, and more accountable.

Sites are occassionally listed by mistake, either by a new editor unsure of the guidelines or just by human error. When those mistakes are found, they are corrected. No site is entitled to remain listed just because someone listed them. That would be like saying all defacing and spammy edits made to a Wikipedia page should be kept unless three or more people agree that the changes should be reverted. If we were to add layers of bureaucracy to the process of removing sites, we'd have to add it to every other process, including adding sites and reviewing editor applications. You think things are slow now?

 

Just looking through some of the garbage that is accepted, the developers (who are also editors at DMOZ), did a really poor job of, i think is more than sufficient evidence of tampering. USE YOUR LOGS TO SEE FOR YOURSELF!!

If you see a category with inappropriate sites listed in it, feel free to tell us about the specific issues in the "Report Hijacks, Dead Links, Inappropriate ODP Content, and other issues here ONLY" thread in the Quality Control Feedback forum. If it truly is inappropriate garbage, then someone will take care of it.

 

Regardless, this listing service may have been something wonderful, but has since turned to YASL (Yet another SPAM listing).

At the risk of us sounding like a broken record, DMOZ isn't a listing service. Any services we offer are aimed at users/surfers. Any benefit to website owners is a side benefit that we generally don't think about.

 

Your problem is that you only "CARE" about lining your own pockets through back-end deals of site developers, and really have no regulation, nor the want for any accountability (public or otherwise).

All editing actions are logged and all editors are accountable to the project and to other editors for the edits they make. Corruption, when found, is dealt with harshly.

 

Show a list of their PayPal account transactions, and prove me wrong -- I DARE YOU!!

Well, if you dare us, then I guess we have to. ;-) (You do realize what a ridiculous request that is, don't you?)

[microvb]

Sites are occassionally listed by mistake, either by a new editor unsure of the guidelines or just by human error. When those mistakes are found, they are corrected. No site is entitled to remain listed just because someone listed them. That would be like saying all defacing and spammy edits made to a Wikipedia page should be kept unless three or more people agree that the changes should be reverted. If we were to add layers of bureaucracy to the process of removing sites, we'd have to add it to every other process, including adding sites and reviewing editor applications. You think things are slow now?

That is not the point. The point is WikiPedia actually responds with listing errors in the form of a reason why the article or edit was declined. There are also more than one editor in a category.

 

At the risk of us sounding like a broken record, DMOZ isn't a listing service. Any services we offer are aimed at users/surfers. Any benefit to website owners is a side benefit that we generally don't think about.

It does somewhat sound like a broken record. Users (as we are all users/surfers), would like to see good resources for services and/or information on the web. Not that it matters, but as an OpenSource contributer, there are several reasons why people come to my site outside of my main service. Source Code downloads (reffered from PlanetSourceCode), cheatcodes for select games (from CheatHappens), development services (from aMember, ShareASale, and google even though you mess with my site), development services (from Microsoft), and so on.

 

Also, the domain has been in existance since 2002. The content of the site contains ZERO ADVERTISMENTS, ZERO HIJACKS / REDIRECTS, ETC. There is no pornography. Applied category was Software Consulting. Description was the same description displayed in google now. All meta-tags are in order. There isn't an over abundance of keywording.

 

------------------------------

So explain to me again -- what exactly are the reasons for rejection ? My site is clearly something that "users/surfers" desire. Site rank is 3 even without your "help", and I receive around 2000-4000 unique hits/day, with visitors who stay on average between 2minutes to an hour.

------------------------------

 

I am sorry, but after such a long time and watching over 200 domains over a period of 10 years never get listed (even through paid DMOZ submission services who guarantee the accuracy of the selected category with description, etc), I feel that the entire software and telecommunications trees are filled with either defunct or corrupt editors.

 

WikiPedia has way more information to sift through than your editors do, and yet their system works -- with viable response times, and turnaround for the entity that made the original edit / entry. They also have a multi-level editing system in place which means that some editors may have permission to edit, but not remove, where other editors have access to edit -- so yes, there is a tiered review service. Turnaround time for a Wiki entry -- 4 hours. Turnaround time for DMOZ --- 2 weeks to never -- with no response back to OP!

 

I would strongly suggest reviewing all editors in the Software and in the Telecommunications trees. I am sure there are some good ones, but at appearance and with all of the data I have gathered over the years, there is definitely something VERY fishy going on there. Some of the categories don't even have an editor nor is there any application to become one.

 

For example:

Computers/Companies/Software_Development ---- Last update: Thursday, September 3, 2009 11:53:44 AM EDT

 

BTW: Way to go "freestyler" on maintaining a huge category in the Web Development section. I would post in your section, however my business is not primarily Web Development -- although as of late, that seems to be where business is moving.

[microvb]

To build and maintain our directory with eligible websites. There are probably around 2-300 million websites that we haven't yet evaluated and we see no reason to give priority to websites that have been suggested.

 

Sites are never added without good reason and never removed without good reason. If yours was 'suddenly removed' (we don't have a slow removal process), then it was indeed for a good reason.

 

2-300 Million unreviewed websites ? Sounds like you need fresh blood in those categories.

[jimnoble]

Sounds like you need fresh blood in those categories.

Have you volunteered to become an editor yet?

[microvb]

Have you volunteered to become an editor yet?

 

Also went ignored.

 

In addition, the category I supplied has no option to become an editor, nor is anyone assigned.

[jimnoble]

The application link is disabled in many categories that are unsuitable for new editors.

 

There are no categories without editors. All can be edited from higher up the category tree and some 200 of can edit anywhere that we choose - and we do.

[microvb]

The application link is disabled in many categories that are unsuitable for new editors.

 

There are no categories without editors. All can be edited from higher up the category tree and some 200 of can edit anywhere that we choose - and we do.

 

What about popular categories such as

Last update: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:05:43 AM EDT

Computers/Software/Consultants/ . No consultants since 2007 ? Really ?

 

The two editors are : callimachus, stephenpace .... did they both DIE ? Are they at war in the Gulf ? Seriously man, whats going on here ?

 

Here is one a bit more active with a whopping 97 sites

Last update: Sunday, January 24, 2010 5:07:12 PM EST

Computers/Software/Internet/Site_Management/Content_Management/Consultants/

 

And another "winner" here:

Last update: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:42:51 AM EDT

Computers/Programming/

 

No new programmers ?

 

The list goes on and on. I understand that it is Volunteer time, however, I could sift through ALL your data in way under 1 year single-handed! So whats with the delays ?

[motsa]

That is not the point. The point is WikiPedia actually responds with listing errors in the form of a reason why the article or edit was declined. There are also more than one editor in a category.

There are 150+ editors who can and do edit anywhere in the directory. But, again, they are volunteers who choose where they edit (and what form that editing takes) in any given editing session.

 

Users (as we are all users/surfers), would like to see good resources for services and/or information on the web.

Absolutely. But a "listing service" is a service to site owners/webmasters that implies an obligation on the part of the service provider. Since we allow site owners to suggest their own sites as a courtesy not as a service, we really have no obligation to site owners. Sure, it would be great if all listable sites were listed in a short amount of time (regardless of whether or not they were submitted), but as long as the editing we do as a group results in the net growth and improvement of the directory, we're doing what we as editors are supposed to do.

 

Also, the domain has been in existance since 2002. The content of the site contains ZERO ADVERTISMENTS, ZERO HIJACKS / REDIRECTS, ETC. There is no pornography. Applied category was Software Consulting. Description was the same description displayed in google now. All meta-tags are in order. There isn't an over abundance of keywording.

 

So explain to me again -- what exactly are the reasons for rejection ? My site is clearly something that "users/surfers" desire. Site rank is 3 even without your "help", and I receive around 2000-4000 unique hits/day, with visitors who stay on average between 2minutes to an hour.

The fact that a listable suggested site might be unlisted after many years really says very little about either the quality of a site or the quality of the suggestion. Unless and until an editor decides that editing the category where you suggested your site should be his/her priority *and* decides that the time they're going to spend editing in that category should be spent reviewing suggested sites, a suggested site will remain unreviewed.

 

I am sorry, but after such a long time and watching over 200 domains over a period of 10 years never get listed (even through paid DMOZ submission services who guarantee the accuracy of the selected category with description, etc), I feel that the entire software and telecommunications trees are filled with either defunct or corrupt editors.

A defunct editor isn't taking space that another editor could be filling so if little editing is being done in an area or a category, then it just means that the topic hasn't interested someone enough in that timeframe for them to edit there.

 

WikiPedia has way more information to sift through than your editors do, and yet their system works -- with viable response times, and turnaround for the entity that made the original edit / entry. They also have a multi-level editing system in place which means that some editors may have permission to edit, but not remove, where other editors have access to edit -- so yes, there is a tiered review service. Turnaround time for a Wiki entry -- 4 hours. Turnaround time for DMOZ --- 2 weeks to never -- with no response back to OP!

We're not Wikipedia. We don't function like Wikipedia and we've never claimed to.

 

I would strongly suggest reviewing all editors in the Software and in the Telecommunications trees. I am sure there are some good ones, but at appearance and with all of the data I have gathered over the years, there is definitely something VERY fishy going on there. Some of the categories don't even have an editor nor is there any application to become one.

Since we don't "assign" categories to editors, reviewing a specific node of the directory to find out how many editors there are there isn't going to be of much help.

 

What about popular categories such as

Last update: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:05:43 AM EDT

Computers/Software/Consultants/ . No consultants since 2007 ? Really ?

"Popular" is in the eye of the beholder and usually means something different to surfers than to editors. Every category is popular with someone, but that doesn't mean that an editor will want to edit there on a regular basis.

 

The list goes on and on. I understand that it is Volunteer time, however, I could sift through ALL your data in way under 1 year single-handed! So whats with the delays ?

I guarantee you that you couldn't, not and be doing any kind of a decent job of it.

[jimnoble]

We've already explained to you in various threads about the duties imposed on our volunteers (pretty much none) and the meaning of the 'last updated' date (pretty much none).

 

If you think that the world needs a directory that works according to your opinions, go ahead and start one. If you'd like to seed it from our database, it's free so go ahead (giving the required attribution).

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got something useful and constructive to do.

[pvgool]

What about popular categories such as

Last update: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:05:43 AM EDT

Computers/Software/Consultants/ . No consultants since 2007 ? Really ?

The dates at the bottom of categories are not correct as the result of a bug. Most dates have been reset to somewhen in 2007. AOL is aware of this bug but it has no high priority.

[microvb]

Since we don't "assign" categories to editors, reviewing a specific node of the directory to find out how many editors there are there isn't going to be of much help.

A quick database query could determine a numerical percentage of threads reviewed overall.

 

"Popular" is in the eye of the beholder and usually means something different to surfers than to editors. Every category is popular with someone, but that doesn't mean that an editor will want to edit there on a regular basis.

By the term "Popular" i meant submission-wise. I am pretty sure there are more than 271 Consulting agencies that have been submitted -- a quick scan of google, yahoo, or bing would reveal that (domain list only), of which the majority are quality listings.

 

So just consolidating all of the information I have been provided

You really don't care what the user wants.

You only care what the "editors" feel are oh-so-worthy of their noteworthy attention in their otherwise busy lives (probably checking paypal for random payments).

There is no real conditions imposed on what really makes a site acceptable -- sort of a random flow of how the wind blows thing.

Double submissions in a period of 2 years is considered spam (1 submit / year).

You officially don't take any payment --- ... you can fill in the rest!

Time Warner/AOL is blamed for the pages showing outdated dates ---- for over 4 years now .... nice.

You have 200+ people who can pretty much mess around with anyones listings (if ever accepted), as well as manipulate the structure to their own free will, eg.. adding their own personal clientele / affiliations.

There are no internal investigations done -- either because you yourself are corrupted, or because of another reason such as you are aware of the problem, and simply don't care how this effects the "users"

Anyone can apply to edit any category, but of course those applications about as under reviewed as the listings themselves, not mentioning the fact that there are several unmonitered listings which I really don't care the reason why -- if no one is editing them because they decided to sit on the toilet for 62 months with a dirty magazine eating chips, someone else should be allowed to take over and/or edit -- which you see no reason to do that.

All listings submitted generally never get listed since no one is reviewing as everyone is asleep, dead, or otherwise in some sort of trance-like coma which incapacitates them of doing anything outside of their own personal clientele.

 

Does that pretty much sum everything up in a nutshell I may have missed a few points, but I think that is pretty much the uncaring gist of the situation at DMOZ/Time Warner/AOL.

[microvb]

We've already explained to you in various threads about the duties imposed on our volunteers (pretty much none) and the meaning of the 'last updated' date (pretty much none).

 

If you think that the world needs a directory that works according to your opinions, go ahead and start one. If you'd like to seed it from our database, it's free so go ahead (giving the required attribution).

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got something useful and constructive to do.

 

In between posts, reading e-mail (37 mailboxes), checking facebook|twitter|linkedin|skype, various messenger systems, my non(useful/constructive) things I have been doing included 4 websites with complex data structures and web service integration, and 17,000 lines of code updated to a telecomm crm/rebilling database. I know that you have been busy on the forums --- how many listings did you look over -- don't answer that as I probably already know the answer. Zero.

 

What the "world" needs, is not my personal "opinion" as you wish to imply. A quick search through your forum, and major search engines clearly indicate there is a serious problem with the way things are handled at dmoz. I do not wish to "seed" a directory from your system whatsoever. Every site I have seen is so far outdated, there is no relevant information for todays technology outside of a history lesson in the decade past, and how NOT to design a website (unless you are building it for optimal display in Lynx, or IE 1.0).

 

What the "world" needs, is for dmoz to stand up and take responsibility for the position the world has given it. Just because Time Warner/AOL owns it, does not mean that by general demand your site can be rendered useless, and no longer an ideal source of base urls for major search engines.

 

Be accountable

Be responsible

Don't be corrupt

 

I am pretty sure that these are really basic concept with which you are familiar. Volunteers in any organization are taking a position of responsibility. They can still be fired like at a regular job for not fulfilling those duties, or only doing them in a self-propelling manner that does not benefit the organization as a whole. Since it is clear in the guidelines that dmoz editors should not accept money and if they do, they get their account deleted and such, then the benefit to be provided to the directory as a whole would be good, clean links with content users might find useful. Who's sites do you think you are listing ? Users blogs --- or businesses. Listing businesses is not a "courtesy" you extend. IT IS THE DRIVING FORCE OF YOUR ENTIRE SYSTEM!! Further, businesses are also "users", in fact : many users.

 

The audacity that WE the public have LET dmoz grow to the point it has become so corrupted and selfish is asinine. All big companies fall, so I hope the bread you are savagely extorting from the community is worth it become there will be a day -- and it's fast approaching -- that dmoz's usefulness will have worn out in the eyes of the shareholders at companies such as google, bing, yahoo, and yes, your trusty sidekick AOL. Perhaps that day has already come in 2007 with the "time/date stamp" bug, and how something so simple, yet critical has been placed on the back-burner even til this hour in the year 2011.